Regular Second Appeal No.900 of 2011 (O & M IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 17 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.900 of 2011 (O & M Teja Singh ….Appellant Versus Ranbir Singh ...Respondent 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. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.2469-C of 2011. This application, filed for condoning the delay of 495 days in re-filing the appeal, is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 495 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.900 of 2011 (O)&M). Regular Second Appeal No.900 of 2011 (O & M The defendant-appellant is in second appeal against whom suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt has been decreed by both the Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this appeal deserves dismissal for the reasons to be given hereinafter. The appellant had borrowed Rs.3,70,000/- from the respondent on 12.12.2000. The appellant had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the respondent in respect of receipt of this amount. Non-payment of the loan amount by the appellant to the respondent led to the filing of the instant suit. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording their evidence and hearing their learned counsel decreed the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.3,70,000/-. The respondent was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt till decision of the case on principal amount and further future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decision till realization vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant went in appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2009. The appellant had taken the stand before the Courts below that he (appellant) used to sell his crops through M/s. Guru Trading Company; that his signatures had been obtained by M/s.Guru Trading Company on blank proforma of pronote and receipt; that he (appellant) had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against M/s.Guru Trading Company; that the respondent, in collusion with and at the instance Regular Second Appeal No.900 of 2011 (O & M of M/s.Guru Trading Company had prepared fictitious pronote and receipt; and that he (appellant) had nothing to do with the pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2). In order to prove the pronote and receipt in question, plaintiff Ranbir Singh appeared in the witness box as P.W.1 and also examined Balbir Singh (P.W.2), who is one of the attesting witnesses of the receipt (Exhibit P.2), the other attesting witness being Jaswinder Singh. The plaintiff-respondent also proved on record sale deed (Exhibit P.15), which was having admitted signatures of defendant- appellant Teja Singh. The signatures of Teja Singh on sale deed (Exhibit P.15) were got compared his signatures on the pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) by the respondent from R.V. Vashishat, Documents Expert (P.W.3). R.V. Vashishat (P.W.3), vide his report (Exhibit P.3) opined that the admitted signatures of Teja Singh (appellant) on sale deed (Exhibit P.15) tallied with his disputed signatures on pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) and that signatures on sale deed (Exhibit P.15) and on pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) were of one and the same person. The evidence furnished by R.V. Vashishat, Documents Expert (P.W.3), which is a clinching one, was not rebutted by the appellant at any stage by examining any expert witness. In the presence of this evidence, both the Courts below were justified in holding that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- from the respondent on 12.12.2000 and had executed pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) in favour of the respondent. It may also be mentioned here that in the suit filed by the appellant against M/s. Guru Trading Company for rendition of accounts, no plea had been raised by him (appellant) that his signatures had been obtained by the said concern on blank proforma Regular Second Appeal No.900 of 2011 (O & M of pronote and receipt. The filing of the suit for rendition of accounts by the appellant against the said firm, thus, had nothing to do with the execution of pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) by him (appellant) in favour of the respondent. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on the merits of the case which may give rise to any substantial question of law. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. However, it is ordered that the respondent will be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the loan amount of Rs.3,70,000/- from the date of execution of pronote and receipt dated 12.12.2000 till its realization and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below with regard to rate of interest payable by the appellant to the respondent on the loan amount are modified to the extent indicated above. Dated: March 17, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE