REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1304 of 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18 th MARCH, 2011 Malkiat Singh .... Appellant Versus Charan Singh .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.3648-C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.3649-C of 2011 Although reasons mentioned in the application, which is also not accompanied by any affidavit, are not sufficient to condone the long delay of 97 days in refiling the appeal, yet adopting liberal approach, the said delay is condoned. CM No.3650-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal: Malkiat Singh defendant having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below is in second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Charan Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.1,92,000/- alleging that the defendant on REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- 04.12.1999 took loan of Rs.1,43,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.56% per month and executed pronote and receipt as collateral security for the same. However, the defendant failed to repay the loan or interest. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed Rs.1,43,000/- as principal amount and Rs.49,000/- as interest at the aforesaid agreed rate. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.06.1995, repayable with interest @ 2% per annum within one year. The plaintiff, however, got pronote and receipt executed for amount of Rs.30,000/- by adding interest on the amount of Rs.20,000/-. The defendant could not repay same within the stipulated period but paid the same in installments. Defendant in all paid Rs.80,000/- to the plaintiff on different dates against aforesaid loan amount and interest. The plaintiff while returning the pronote and receipt dated 19.06.1995 after receipt of Rs.80,000/- in all, obtained thumb impressions of defendant on blank pronote and receipt. The plaintiff might have converted the same into pronote and receipt in question. The said pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated. The defendant never executed the same nor borrowed Rs.1,43,000/- from the plaintiff on 04.12.1999. Other plaint allegations were also broadly controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.1,43,000/- along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment decree dated 19.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff himself stepped into witness box as PW-2 and stated according to his version. The plaintiff also examined Ranjit Singh PW-1 deed writer who scribed the impugned pronote-cum-receipt and Roor Singh, PW-3, one of the attesting witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt. Both of them have stated according to plaintiff's version. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness box and broadly stated according to his version. The defendant also examined Navdeep Gupta, DW-2 documents expert who opined that document mark A (written on the back of bus ticket) has been written and signed by the plaintiff as found on comparison with his standard writing and signatures. In rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff examined Dr. Inderjit Singh document expert PW-4, who opined that document Mark A has not been written and signed by the plaintiff as found on comparison with his standard writing and signatures. He also opined that the disputed thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt in question are of the defendant as found on comparison with his standard thumb impressions. Plaintiff's evidence regarding advancement of Rs.1,43,000/- as loan to the defendant on 04.12.1999 and execution of pronote-cum-receipt in question for the same by the defendant, is very cogent and reliable. Plaintiff's statement in this regard has been corroborated by scribe and one attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt. As against the same, there is only self- serving, bald and oral statement of the defendant himself. The same is not sufficient to rebut the cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. There is also no REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -4- reason why the deed writer and the attesting witness would depose falsely against the defendant. In addition to it, the defendant in the written statement and also in the witness box admitted his thumb impressions on the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. The same are also proved by testimony of Dr. Inderjit Singh PW-4, document expert. Science of comparison of finger prints is perfect science. Testimony of Dr. Inderjit Singh has not been rebutted in any manner. On the contrary, defendant has examined documents expert Navdeep Gupta, DW-2 but did not get his thumb impressions on the pronote cum receipt compared with his standard thumb impressions. It is thus manifest that impugned pronote-cum-receipt has been executed by the defendant and bears his thumb impressions. There is sole testimony of defendant in support of his version but even his testimony was completely impeached in cross-examination. In the written statement, defendant alleged having borrowed Rs.20,000/- only from the plaintiff and having repaid Rs.80,000/- in all against the same. It is not explained why the defendant would pay Rs.80,000/- as against loan of Rs.20,000/- only. Defendant has also pleaded that pronote and receipt dated 19.06.1995 for the loan of Rs.20,000/- were executed for Rs.30,000/- by including interest for one year @ 2 % per month. However, interest on amount of Rs.20,000/- for one year @ 2% per month would come to Rs.4,800/- only and not Rs.10,000/- as alleged by the defendant. In addition to it, the defendant alleged that after he had paid Rs.80,000/- in all to the plaintiff against the aforesaid loan and interest, the plaintiff while returning the pronote and receipt dated 19.06.1995 obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on blank pronote and receipt which might have been converted into the pronote and receipt in question for loan REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -5- of Rs.1,43,000/-. However, it is not explained in the written statement and even learned counsel for the appellant is unable to explain as to why the defendant would affix thumb impressions on blank pronote and receipt at the asking of the plaintiff while taking back the previous pronote and receipt dated 19.06.1995 after having allegedly paid a whopping amount of Rs.80,000/- against loan of Rs.20,000/-. The defendant's version is thus intrinsically and inherently unreliable and unacceptable. Moreover, in the witness box, the defendant admitted that he had taken loan from the plaintiff twice against execution of pronote and receipt. This admission of the defendant strengthens the plaintiff's case and demolishes the entire version of the defendant. In the written statement, the defendant pleaded loan of Rs.20,000/- taken on 19.06.1995 and repayment thereof with interest and the defendant denied having taken loan of Rs.1,43,000/- from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff. However, the defendant in the written statement did not plead that he had taken any other loan from the plaintiff in addition to loan of Rs.20,000/- taken on 19.06.1995. In the witness box, however, the defendant stated that he had taken loan twice from the plaintiff against execution of pronote-cum-receipt. He even identified pronote Exhibit P-1 and receipt Exhibit P-2 in question, having been executed by him against one of the two loans taken by him from the plaintiff. Thus even the testimony of the defendant himself strengthens the plaintiff's case. Moreover, in the witness box, the defendant could not even tell the month or year of the first pronote nor he could tell month and year of repaying the said loan. He also could not deny having taken loan from the plaintiff on 04.12.1999. On the contrary, the defendant stated that he did not know if he had borrowed money from the plaintiff on 04.12.1999. Thus the defendant in cross-examination REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -6- could not deny the plaintiff's version of having taken loan from the plaintiff on 04.12.1999. In concluding part of his cross-examination, the defendant came out with a strange statement. He deposed that out of affection, he could affix his thumb impressions on blank pronotes at the asking of any person. It is surprising that the defendant is ready to affix his thumb impressions on blank pronotes. Testimony of such a person is hardly worth of any credence. At one stage, defendant deposed that he did not know what has been written in his affidavit of examination in chief. However, in the next breath, he deposed that he himself got the affidavit typed. The defendant could not even tell date of alleged loan of Rs.20,000/- and dates of repayment thereof although mentioned in his affidavit of examination in chief. Defendant's testimony is thus completely unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically pleaded that document Mark A has not been considered by the courts below. The contention cannot be accepted. Courts below have considered the said document. However, it does not help the appellant in any manner. The said document at best relates to alleged repayment of loan of Rs.20,000/- as pleaded by the defendant. However, the instant suit does not relate to the said loan transaction. Consequently, the said document has no bearing on the merits of the instant list. On the contrary, as noticed hereinbefore, the defendant admitted hat he had taken loan twice from the plaintiff. Consequently, document mark A, pertaining to one loan, can have no bearing on the amount due qua the second loan. In addition to it, the said document has been denied by the plaintiff. Both the parties have examined document experts as witnesses who have given contradictory opinions. Consequently, said REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1304 OF 2011 (O&M) -7- document is also not duly proved because statement of document expert examined by the defendant stands rebutted by the testimony of document expert examined by the plaintiff. Science of comparison of handwriting and signatures is not perfect science. As also seen in the instant case, handwriting expert ordinarily gives opinion in favour of the party engaging him. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence and the said finding is supported by various reasons recorded by the courts below. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. In fact said finding is the only finding that can be arrived at on consideration of the evidence on record. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 18th March, 2011 'raj'