RSA No. 4360 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.4360 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.02.2011 Jagat Singh ......Appellant Versus Hanuman Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.V.Yadav,Advocate for the appellant Mr.Vivek Singla,Advocate for the respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 65,000/- basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 10.5.2003. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount on demand but had failed to do so. Defendant in his written statement, on the other hand, has denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether defendant borrowed Rs.60000/- from the plaintiff on 10.5.2003 and executed pronote and receipt in RSA No. 4360 of 2009 (O&M) 2 favour of plaintiff?OPP 2.Whether defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month on the borrowed amount?OPP 3.If issues no.1 and 2 are proved then whether plaintiff deserve for the recovery of Rs. 65000/-?OPP 4.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 5.Whether plaintiff has no cause of action, to file the suit?OPD 6.Whether plaintiff is a money lender without licence of money lending if so to what effect?OPD 7.Relief” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 4.2.2006. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff is that after borrowing `60,000/- from the plaintiff, defendant had executed pronote and receipt dated 10.5.2003 in his favour. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined attesting witness PW3 Rajinder Singh, . Plaintiff also examined Bir Singh, the scribe of pronote and receipt, as PW2. Defendant although himself did not appear in the witness box but examined DW1 Vijay Rustogi, handwriting and finger print expert. As RSA No. 4360 of 2009 (O&M) 3 per the said witness, after comparing the questioned signatures of the defendant on the pronote and receipt with his standard signatures, he was of the opinion that the same had not been signed by the same person. Thus, in the present case, the defendant had been successful in rebutting evidence led by the plaintiff qua execution of the pronote and receipt by examining a handwriting expert. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 07, 2011 arya