RSA No.2533 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2533 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.7.2009 Bant Singh ......Appellant Versus Charanjit Kaur .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs.1,20,000/- as principal amount on the basis of pronote dated 23.12.1997. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding due execution of the pronote by the appellant. The Courts below have relied upon statement of PW2-Karam Singh, an attesting witness, who has deposed that he knows the parties and the defendant-appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from plaintiff-Charanjit Kaur on 23.12.1997 with the promise to repay the same together with interest @ 2% per month. The contents of the pronote were read over and the same were thumb marked by the defendant after admitting the same to be correct. He also deposed that RSA No.2533 of 2009 (2) the money was given and taken in his presence. PW3-Gurcharan Singh, is another witness, who deposed on the same lines as Karam Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the thumb impressions on the pronote were found to be not comparable by the Finger Prints Expert and that the scribe is a school boy, who has not been examined. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the appellant executed the pronote and receipt, is not sustainable. The arguments raised are in the realm of re-appreciation of evidence. Even otherwise, the evidence of expert is only a corroborative evidence and not conclusive. Once the attesting witnesses of the pronote and the receipt have categorically deposed on oath in Court regarding execution of the pronote and the passing of the consideration, therefore, even if the thumb impressions are not comparable, it does not raise any substantial question of law. For the same reason, the testimony of scribe is not relevant when the attesting witnesses have deposed in favour of the execution of the decree and passing of the consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by re-appreciation of evidence. The findings recorded do not give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13-07-2009 ds