R.S.A.No. 2092 of 2005 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2092 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 26, 2009 Om Parkash ---Appellant versus Mukhtiar Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.G.S.Bhatia,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Mukhtiar Singh had filed a suit for recovery. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Malerkotla vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.2004 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Sh. Mukhtiar Singh respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the R.S.A.No. 2092 of 2005 (O&M) {2} recovery of Rs. 1,71,600/- against the defendant; on the averments that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. One lac from him on 30.6.1999 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. Defendant executed the pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses, which were scribed by him(defendant). Defendant did not pay any amount. Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 71,600/- by way of interest at the rate of 2% per annum. 3. Defendant filed written statement controverting the averments and pleaded that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt in his favour. It was further pleaded that plaintiff and Roor Singh were carrying on the business of Commission Agent in the name of M/s Roor Singh Mukhtiar Singh, Grain Market, Malerkotla. The said firm was dissolved in 1992-93 That defendant used to sell his produce at the said firm by taking land on Chakota. That he is not the owner of any land and that the pronote and receipt have been fabricated by the plaintiff in which there are material alterations which have been made to bring in the suit within time.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in lieu thereof, executed the pronote and receipt dated 30.6.1999? OPP (2)Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are fictitious documents? OPD R.S.A.No. 2092 of 2005 (O&M) {3} (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP (4)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties,I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt Exs. P-1 and P-2 respectively. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff examined PW-2 Hakan Singh, one of the attesting witness. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. PW-3 Mohd. Yakub was examined to prove the translations of the pronote and receipt. The case of the defendant, on the other hand, is that the pronote was a tampered document. The amount of loan had been changed and the date had also been changed from 30.6.1994 to 30.6.1999. Both the sides had examined the hand writing experts in support of their cases and hand writing experts had given opinion in favour of the parties who had examined them and both the reports can be ignored. Admittedly, the pronote and receipt had been scribed by the defendant-appellant himself. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In these circumstances, the fact that at one place, in the pronote, the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 11,00,000/- loses its significance because in the 8th line of the pronote (Ex. P-1) itself, the amount of loan has been mentioned as Rs. 1,00,000/- and the half of the amount of the same has been mentioned in the receipt (Ex. P-2) as Rs. 50,000/-. A perusal of the pronote and receipt do not lead to the inference that the date has been changed from 30.6.1994 to 30.6.1999 as in the receipt, the date has been clearly mentioned as 30.6.1999. Moreover, the pronote and receipt have R.S.A.No. 2092 of 2005 (O&M) {4} been scribed by the appellant himself and he was required to lead some evidence to the effect that the pronote and receipt , after they were scribed b y him, had been tampered with by the plaintiff. In the absence of any such material on record, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 26, 2009 PARAMJIT