-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4266 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 14, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4266 of 2009 (O&M). Bholi ... Appellant VERSUS Basant Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Narinder Singh Swaitch, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant-appellant Bholi is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Basant Singh against the defendant-appellant and defendants- respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for recovery was decreed and the -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4266 of 2009 (O&M). plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to recover Rs.1,05,600/- along with interest from the defendant-appellant and defendants- respondents Nos.2 to 4, who are the children of the defendant- appellant was decreed. However, the defendants were held liable to make payment of the decretal amount to the extent of movable and immovable properties they (defendants) inherited from Dalip Singh, husband of defendant-appellant and father of defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 4. It is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that Dalip Singh (since deceased), husband of the defendant- appellant and father of defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.9.2002 and had agreed to return the same along with interest at the rate of Re.1/- per cent per month while executing a pronote in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Dalip Singh died on 27.1.2004 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. When the defendants failed to make payment of the amount to the plaintiff- respondent, he (plaintiff-respondent) filed the instant suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,05,600/- (i.e. Rs.80,000/- as principal plus Rs.25600/- as interest). The plaintiff-respondent proved on record the pronote (Exhibit P.1) and the receipt (Exhibit P.2). Raj Kumar (P.W.2), who is one of the marginal witnesses of the pronote and the receipt deposed about the authenticity of these documents. This statement of Raj Kumar (P.W.2) gets complete corroboration from the statement of plaintiff Basant Singh (P.W.1). It is an admitted fact that Dalip Singh (deceased) had studied -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4266 of 2009 (O&M). upto Middle Standard. He could sign in English as well as in Punjabi. If he singed the pronote (Exhibit P.1) and the receipt (Exhibit P.2) in Punjabi, it cannot be said that these documents are forged ones. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 14, 2011. JUDGE ak