R. S. A. No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 19, 2011 Baljinder Singh .... Appellant Vs. Surinder Kumar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. P. Setia, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 8004-C of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Defendant Baljinder Singh having been unsuccessful in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Surinder Kumar filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.84,000/- alleging that on 03.05.2005, defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for R. S. A. No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the same, but the defendant failed to repay the loan amount and interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.60,000/- as principal amount and Rs.24,000/- as interest at the agreed rate of 2% per month till the filing of the suit. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having taken any loan from the plaintiff or having executed or signed any pronote and receipt. It is alleged that the alleged pronote is forged and fabricated document. Pronote-cum-receipt in question does not bear name, addresses and signatures of the witnesses. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.84,000/- with pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum. In first appeal preferred by the defendant, learned District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2010, modified the rate of interest and decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 03.05.2005 (date of advancement) till decree of the trial court and future interest @ 6% per annum, as awarded by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. R. S. A. No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M) 3 The plaintiff himself stepped into the witness-box and stated according to his own version. He also produced his account books in support of his version. Sukhdev Singh (PW-2) is marginal witness of pronote-cum-receipt. He has also supported the plaintiff's case. Plaintiff has also examined Navdeep Gupta (PW-3) – handwriting expert, who opined that pronote-cum-receipt bears signatures of the defendant, which match with his standard signatures. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared into the witness-box and stated according to his version. He also examined Varun Gagneja (DW-2) – handwriting expert, who opined that disputed signatures of defendant do not match with his standard signatures. Harpal Singh (DW- 3) stated that defendant had agreed to sell his land vide agreement dated 01.03.2005 and received Rs.5,00,000/- as earnest money and subsequently, sale deed dated 12.04.2006 was executed. This evidence was led to depict that defendant was not in need of money. Plaintiff's evidence has been found to be sufficient and reliable by both the courts below. Plaintiff's testimony is supported by testimony of Sukhdev Singh (PW-2) – attesting witness of pronote-cum-receipt. There is no reason why Sukhdev Singh would depose falsely against the defendant. There is also no reason why the plaintiff would file a false suit against the defendant. No counter version has been pleaded by the defendant. His defence is simply of denial. However, the plaintiff has R. S. A. No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M) 4 successfully proved the execution of pronote-cum-receipt by the defendant. Even handwriting expert examined by the defendant has admitted that writing characteristics of disputed and standard signatures of defendant are similar. The plaintiff had withdrawn the amount of Rs.60,000/- from his own firm for advancing it to the defendant. Relevant entries from the account books have also been produced in this regard. The plaintiff had also served notice on the defendant before filing the suit, but the defendant did not even respond to the said notice. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that photostat copy of the pronote-cum-receipt supplied to the defendant did not bear the names, addresses and signatures of the witnesses. The contention cannot be accepted. The defendant pleaded in the written statement that even the original pronote-cum-receipt does not bear the names, addresses and signatures of witnesses. However, the original pronote-cum-receipt does bear names, addresses and signatures of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that defendant was not in need of the alleged loan because he had received Rs.5,00,000/- as earnest money vide agreement to sell dated 01.03.2005. The contention cannot be accepted because even if the defendant had received Rs.5,00,000/- as earnest money for his land, even then he could be in need of more money. In addition to it, this contention, as well as the evidence on which it is based, is beyond the pleadings. No such plea was even raised in R. S. A. No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M) 5 the written statement. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is supported by reasons recorded by both the courts below. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is found to be lacking any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 19, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE