RSA No.627 of 2010 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.627 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 29.11.2010 **** Suraj Kumar Bansal . . . . Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Dass and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery has been decreed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendant had availed loan of `6 lacs by executing a pronote and receipt dated 1.4.1998. The defendant, however, claimed that the pronote and receipt is forged and fabricated. It is admitted by him that the said pronote and receipt are signed by him but it is alleged that the columns were blank and he had lost it in June 1997 regarding which he had lodged DDR No.12 dated 15.6.1997. It is further alleged that the said pronote and receipt has been filled up by the plaintiff on the basis of which suit has been filed. A pure question of fact was before the Courts below to decide about the alleged forgery of the pronote and receipt. Both the Courts below, on the appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the defendant. It is observed that the defendant has failed to explain as to why he had kept the blank singed pronote and receipt and how it fell in the hands of the plaintiff, if, according to him it was lost near Bus Stand of Sahauran. The Courts below have also recorded a firm finding of fact about the transaction which had taken place between the parties as the pronote and receipt has been proved by the marginal witnesses and the amount advanced is also reflected in the cash book Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-3 maintained by the plaintiff. RSA No.627 of 2010 - 2 - In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any subsequent substantial question of law except for asserting that the judgment and decree of the Courts below are erroneous due to misreading of evidence. He, however, failed to show as to what evidence have been misread by the Courts below while recording a finding of fact because the Civil Suit has to be decided on the preponderance of the evidence and in the present case learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out error in the judgment of the Courts below in respect of misreading of evidence. Thus, in my view there is no substance in this appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) November 29, 2010 JUDGE Vivek