IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 460 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: December 8, 2011. Balbir Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Lala Surajmal @Suraj Bhan. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 09.12.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff for recovery, was dismissed. RSA No.460 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, case of present appellant-plaintiff is that respondent-defendant used to borrow money from him and used to execute a pronote and receipt for repayment of the same. It is further contended that he had taken loan of `43,800/- and executed pronote on 30.07.1999. It is also contended that the said amount was returned by the respondent-defendant however, he again approached appellant-plaintiff on 03.07.2000 to advance a loan of `51,000/- for starting business of his son and accordingly, the said money was given by the appellant-plaintiff to him at the rate of 4% per month. On refusal of respondent-defendant to repay the said loan, the present suit has been filed. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant contested the suit on the ground that the pronote and receipt is result of fraud and no such pronote and receipt was executed by him nor any amount of `51,000/- was received by him. Rather plea has been taken that he had approached the appellant-plaintiff to advance a sum of `51,000/- to solemnize the marriage of his daughter and he had obtained his signatures on some form and the said amount was returned by him with interest in the month of January, 2001. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by him 2 RSA No.460 of 2009 against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that execution of pronote and receipt by respondent-defendant in favour of present appellant-plaintiff is duly proved and that however, both the courts below committed illegality by observing that the pronote and receipt are surrounded by suspicious circumstances. However, there is no force in this argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. Both the courts below have given sufficient reasons in discarding the present pronote and receipt allegedly executed by respondent-defendant in favour of present appellant-plaintiff. Plaintiff has himself placed on record two different pronotes and receipts. The first pronote and receipt is dated 03.07.1999 and the second is dated 03.07.2000 i.e. the pronote and receipt in dispute. In the first pronote and receipt, the signatures of drawer crosses the revenue stamps from both the sides and similarly signatures of Suraj Mal, respondent-defendant crosses revenue stamp on the receipt appended on the foot of the first pronote. However, in the pronote and receipt, in dispute, signatures are appearing on the revenue stamp alone. The revenue stamps bear some dates. However, upper portion of digits of the said date and the lower portion of the digits are also missing. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that the revenue stamp was removed from some other document and affixed on the pronote and receipt in dispute. There is also cutting in the signatures of Suraj Mal on 3 RSA No.460 of 2009 the same. There are also material discrepancies in the depositions of witnesses examined by appellant-plaintiff as observed by both the courts below. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 8, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 4