RSA No.3900 of 2011 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3900 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 26, 2011. Jarnail Singh ... Appellant(s) v. Radhey Sham ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant to the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery was decreed by the trial court. Aggrieved against the same, defendant had filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal. Briefly stated, plaintiff pleaded in his suit that on 25.12.2002, appellant-defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- in cash at Mansa on payment of interest @ 2% per month. The defendant received the amount. The defendant had also executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the plaintiff. Due to the non payment or non-return of the loan amount, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for recovery. Upon issuance of notice of the suit, present appellant/defendant caused appearance and raised preliminary objections of cause of action, RSA No.3900 of 2011 (O&M) -: 2 :- locus standi and maintainability of the suit. The defendant specifically denied to have borrowed any amount as alleged. He also denied execution of the alleged pronote and the receipt in favour of the plaintiff. No replication was filed. On the conclusion of the pleadings, following issues were drawn by the trial court:- 1. Whether the defendant executed pronote and receipt dated 25.10.2002 after borrowing a sum of Rs.2,85,000?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest, if so, to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated document? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 5. Relief. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and examined Amit Kumar, attesting witness of the pronote and the receipt, as PW2. No witness was examined in the defence. The trial court placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of the plaintiff and the attesting witness to hold disbursement of the loan and execution of the pronote and the receipt. The court has held that even though the defendant had set up the plea of forgery and fabrication in respect of the pronote and the receipt in question, but he has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate this plea. It was further held that if the signatures on the document in question were not of the defendant, he would have examined some hand-writing or finger print expert to belie his signatures on the document. However, so far as interest RSA No.3900 of 2011 (O&M) -: 3 :- was concerned, the court awarded 12% per annum as pendente lite interest and future interest @ 6% per annum. Having determined the rate of interest, the court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The lower appellate court has affirmed findings of the returned by the trial court. Shri Harchand Singh Batth, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, has assailed the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the courts below on the following grounds:- (a) that brother of the respondent-plaintiff is a commission agent; (b) that respondent-plaintiff is engaged in the work of money lending and he has filed various suits on the basis of the pronotes executed in his favour by numerous persons; and (c) that it has come on the record that the appellant-defendant was having transactions with the respondent-plaintiff and he was purchasing grocery from him. The above said arguments in no way formulate any question of law, much less a substantial one, for the consideration of this Court. Whether the version projected by the plaintiff was probable, natural or convincing or not, the same has already been determined by both the courts. This Court in a regular second appeal cannot re-appreciate and do re- appraisal of the evidence. The arguments raised are essentially in the realm of appreciation. There being no material before this Court, no discordant note can be recorded to upset the well reasoned judgments of the courts below. Hence, there is no merit in the present regular second appeal. The same is dismissed. CM No.11190-C of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 69 days occurred in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. RSA No.3900 of 2011 (O&M) -: 4 :- CM No.11191-C of 2011 Counsel states that requisite court fee has been affixed. The application is allowed and the Counsel is permitted to affix the requisite court fee. CM No.11192-C of 2011 Since the appeal itself has been dismissed on merits, no orders are called for in this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 796 days delay in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 26, 2011. Judge kadyan