R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2011 Ram Mehar ......Appellant Versus Rameshwar Dass and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Duhan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed suit for recovery against the defendant. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that plaintiff No.1 was the sole proprietor of plaintiff No.2 and regular account books were maintained by the firm. Defendant used to sell his food grains at the commission agency of the plaintiffs. On 29.4.2003, defendant took a loan of ` 2,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum. A bahi entry was duly executed by the defendant in his own hand in this regard. Entry was also made in the cash book and ledger by the plaintiff firm. On R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M) 2 16.6.2003, defendant again took loan of ` 11,000/- from the plaintiffs for repair of his tractor. Due entries were made in bahi, cash book and ledger maintained by the plaintiffs firm. Defendant, on the other hand, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the case of the plaintiffs was based on forged entries. No loan had been taken by the defendant from the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree of recovery of ` 3,41,000/- alongwith interest, as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD 4.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. If so whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest pendentelite and future interest at contractual rate of 13 % per annum? OPP 6. Relief. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2010. However, in appeal, District Judge, Jind decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M) 3 and decree dated 9.10.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed suit for recovery basing their claim on the entries in the record maintained by them. The entries in the record maintained by the plaintiffs were denied by the defendant. Both the sides examined their respective hand writing experts in support of their pleas. Yashpal Chand Jain, handwriting and finger print expert, examined by the plaintiffs, gave his report that the disputed signatures of the defendant matched with his standard signatures, whereas, J.C. Singla, handwriting and finger print expert, examined by the defendant, deposed that the questioned signatures on the bahi entry did not match with the standard signatures of the defendant. The expert examined by the defendant, in his cross- examination, admitted that he had compared the disputed signatures of the defendant with Ex.P-1/T, which were, in fact, Hindi translation of bahi entry Ex.P-1 and not the specimen signatures of the defendant. The expert further admitted that he was only a matriculate and had not given any exam of International Criminology School, though, he had attended the course. He had obtained practical training from M.L.Singla, handwriting and finger print expert. He was not having any degree or any qualification in this regard. In R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M) 4 these circumstances, learned District Judge rightly held that the report submitted by expert J.C.Singla was liable to be ignored. The plaintiffs had been successful in proving that the entries in the bahi had been duly signed by the defendant. Moreover, the bahi entry Ex.P-1 was duly corroborated by Income tax return Ex.P-11. It has been noticed by the learned District Judge in para 13 of its judgment that the conduct of the defendant was highly doubtful because in his cross-examination, he had shown ignorance and had denied his specimen signatures taken in the Court Ex.P-2 and on the vakalatnama filed by his counsel on his behalf and on written statement. Learned District Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, given a finding of fact that the bahi entries in question were duly signed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the said finding during the course of arguments. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 anita