RSA No.1873 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1873 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2009 Jagsir Singh ...... Appellant Versus Amrit Lal ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. **** Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the recovery suit of the plaintiff ( on the basis of pronote). The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the execution of the pronote and receipt has duly been proved by the plaintiff/respondent or not? ii)Whether there is tampering with or material alteration on the pronote? iii)Whether in the given circumstances possibility of misuse of signatures of the appellant cannot be ruled out or not? Each one of these is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that findings on questions No. (i) and (iii) are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to render them perverse. As regards questions No.(ii) learned counsel has sought to rely upon the testimony of the handwriting expert as per which the body of the pronote was in one pen and one ink while the signatures were RSA No.1873 of 2009 (O&M) 2 made later on by a different pen with a different ink. Learned counsel has thus argued that this fact establishes the assertion of the appellant that because of relationship between the parties blank signed paper has been used by the respondent. Even though the possibility of this cannot be ruled out yet the statement of the handwriting expert to the effect that the signatures were made later is really of no consequence because the term 'later' could be stretched from a few minutes to a few years. Apart from that learned counsel has also argued that as per the case of the plaintiff the amount reflected in the pronote was the accumulated amount of various transactions which was recorded in his Rokar Bahi. Learned counsel has argued that in this eventuality it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to place on record the original of the Rokar Bahi which has not been done. In my opinion even though the origin of the case was entries in the Rokar Bahi yet when the respondent filed the suit he was claiming repaymnet on the basis of a specific pronote issued by the appellant and thus it was not incumbent upon him to produce the original Rokar Bahi before the Court. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 17, 2009 sunita