R.S.A. No. 1859 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1859 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2008 Joginder Singh ..Appellant v. Gurbachan Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned court below, whereby that of the trial court was reversed and the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 1,06,640/- was decreed to the extent of Rs. 62,000/- plus interest thereon. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery alleging that the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 62,000/- from him on 10.11.2001 at an interest of 2% per month, for which pronote and receipt were executed, which were scribed by the Deed Writer, Malerkotla. When in spite of repeated requests, amount was not paid, the suit was filed. The learned trial Court, considering the material placed on record by the appellant-plaintiff, decreed the suit by rejecting the defence of the respondent-defendant to the extent that on 1.12.2002, he had returned a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the appellant-plaintiff for which he had executed a receipt. Before the lower Appellate Court, the respondent-defendant succeeded in appeal and the suit filed by the appellant- plaintiff was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the receipt produced by the respondent-defendant in defence showing payment of Rs. 72,000/- as return of the amount taken by him along with interest was not proved. It was merely a photo copy. The loss of original was not proved and no permission was taken to produce secondary evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The learned court below has considered the submissions in detail, wherein it was noticed that in fact receipt (Ex. D3) was R.S.A. No. 1859 of 2008 [2] produced by the respondent -defendant in secondary evidence with permission of the Court and when the same was exhibited, no objection was raised by the appellant-plaintiff. It is further noticed that the appellant-plaintiff in his cross- examination had admitted his signatures on the receipt. All what was sought to be stated was that in fact only a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was returned, which figure was changed to Rs. 72,000/-. The same is not borne out from the record. Receipt (Ex. D3) does not show any such over-writing. The figure `7', as is mentioned in the receipt, is clearly tallying with another figure written as `7' on the same receipt. In fact, the conduct of the appellant-plaintiff itself shows that his statement cannot be believed. If admittedly, he had received a sum of Rs. 12,000/- from the respondent-defendant on 1.12.2002, where was the question of filing a suit for recovery of Rs. 62,000/- plus interest from the date the pronote was executed. The findings recorded by the learned court below are findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.12.2008 mk