RSA No.2382 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2382 of 2010 Date of Decision:30.06.2010 Sukhmander Singh and others .……Appellants Versus Kulbir Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. I. S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Legal representatives of defendant-Gurdial Singh have filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Kulbir Singh-respondent filed suit against Gurdial Singh defendant for recovery of Rs.3,98,650/- alleging that the defendant on 03.12.2003 borrowed Rs.3,35,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest thereon at the rate of 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same. The plaintiff in the suit, however, claimed interest at the rate of 1% per month only from the date of advancement of loan till filing the suit. The defendant failed to pay any amount and, therefore, suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement inter alia pleaded that he was customer of the plaintiff, who is Commission Agent. The plaintiff often obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on blank pronotes and possibly plaintiff might have used one of the said blank RSA No.2382 of 2010 -2- pronote. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.3,82,737/- with pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal loan amount only till recovery. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is difference in the shade of ink used to fill the pronote-cum-receipt and the receipt does not bear any date. However, evidence has been appreciated by both the Courts below and this contention has also been noticed. As regards omission of date on the receipt, it makes no difference because pronote bears date and pronote-cum- receipt is a single composite document. As regards difference in the shade of ink, the same can be in the normal course. The testimony of the expert witness examined by the defendant on this aspect has been shattered in cross-examination. Moreover, the defendant has alleged that the plaintiff had been obtaining his thumb impressions on blank pronotes. However, the defendant has not explained as to why he had been affixing his thumb impressions on blank pronotes at the instance of the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that he did not take RSA No.2382 of 2010 -3- any amount from the plaintiff. If it were so, there was no occasion for the defendant to have affixed his thumb impressions on blank pronotes at the asking of the plaintiff. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 30.06.2010. A. Kaundal