RSA No.1973 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1973 of 2011 Date of decision: August 25, 2011. Bhagwant Singh ... Appellant(s) v. Chamkaur Singh ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. Present regular second appeal has been filed by defendant to the suit. The trial court had decreed the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 22.1.2005. The appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed. Briefly stated, plaintiff has averred that on 22.1.2005, a cash amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was advanced to the defendant-appellant for household needs. In lieu of the loan received, defendant had executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Plaintiff had instituted a suit on 30.8.2005 for recovery of Rs.3.30 lacs, which included principal sum of Rs.3.00 lacs and interest amount of Rs.30,000/- calculated @ 2% per month. RSA No.1973 of 2011 -: 2 :- Defendant appeared, filed written statement and questioned the maintainability of the suit. Defendant further raised preliminary objection regarding lack of cause of action and the documents, i.e., pronote and receipt being fabricated and forged. Defendant took a stand that he had obtained a loan in the year 2002 from Punjab National Bank. Respondent- plaintiff stood as surety for him and obtained his signatures over blank pronote and receipt to secure his interest in case defendant failed to repay the loan amount. Plaintiff filed replication in which he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied those of the written statement. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW2 and examined Gurmeet Singh, scribe as PW1, and Satnam Singh being attesting witness to the pronote and receipt, as PW3. Defendant examined Baldev Ahuja, Manager, Punjab National Bank as DW1 to prove the fact that he had obtained a loan from the bank and plaintiff stood surety for him. Defendant himself appeared as DW2. The crucial issue for consideration before the trial court was, whether the defendant had obtained a loan and had executed a pronote and receipt on 22.1.2005 or not. Two versions were projected before the trial court; one in the suit and the second in the written statement. Defendant in the written statement had dubbed the pronote and the receipt to be forged and fabricated documents as his signatures were obtained on blank papers. The trial court, after taking notice of the evidence of Baldev Ahuja that the defendant had obtained the loan and the respondent-plaintiff had stood surety for him, held the version given by the plaintiff to be trustworthy. The trial court concluded as under:- RSA No.1973 of 2011 -: 3 :- “12. From the comparative study of evidence led by both the parties, the preponderance of probability is tilting towards the case of plaintiff. The cross examination of Balwant Singh DW2 is quite relevant where he identified the signatures of him over pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. Though the defendant is alleging that he affixed the signatures on blank pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2, yet it is evident from the on oath deposition of plaintiff witnesses that these documents were signed by the defendant after scribing contents and after taking loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statements of plaintiff witnesses.” The aforesaid finding returned by the trial court has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Both the versions, propounded by the plaintiff and the defendant, were in the realm of appreciation of evidence. The courts below have held that the plaintiff's version inspires confidence, especially when the defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt. Therefore, in the regular second appeal, this Court cannot accept the argument raised by Shri Ashok Kumar Khunger that the findings of the two courts below should be set aside as the defendant's version is more probable, convincing and natural than that of the plaintiff. This Court would be hesitant to tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. Thus, there is no infirmity in the judgments rendered by both the courts below. This Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellant- defendant especially when the Counsel failed to formulate any question of RSA No.1973 of 2011 -: 4 :- law, much a less a substantial one, for consideration of this Court during the course of arguments. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 25, 2011. Judge kadyan