IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1668 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 28, 2009 Sarvjeet, Commission Agent, Bhaini Mian Khan and another ....Appellants Versus Sewa Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the respondent for recovery was decreed with costs by the trial Court on 1.6.2007 and the said judgment and decree was upheld by the lower appellate Court on 21.10.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants are before this Court by way of second appeal. According to the plaintiff, he had been selling his crops to the defendants. On 15.12.1999, defendant No.2 approached him and requested for lending Rs.50,000/- to be paid to other farmers. On receiving the said amount from the plaintiff, defendant No.2 issued a cheque on behalf of defendant No.1 for Rs.50,000/- as security. Afterwards, the defendants refused to return the amount. The defendants admitted the factum of the plaintiff selling his crops to them. However, they denied borrowing the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff or issuing any such cheque as security. While appearing as DW1 Rattan Singh, defendant No.2 R.S.A. No. 1668 of 2009 -2- admitted that cheque dated 15.12.1999 was issued but denied his signatures on the same. In a way, he came out with plea of fraud and forgery. He was required to substantiate the same but he failed. He did not explain as to how the cheque in question which bore the stamp of the defendant firm came in the hands of the plaintiff. Instead, he went on to state that the firm was closed prior to issuance of the cheque and the cheque book was deposited in the bank. No record in that respect was summoned and proved. Moreover, he also admitted that as per record of the Market Committee, the firm continued to carry on its operations till 31.3.2001. The suit, having been filed on 14.12.2002 was within limitation as the cheque was issued on 15.12.1999. In view of the above, it is held that the learned Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The findings of the Courts below are neither perverse nor suffering from any illegality or infirmity. As such, they cannot be altered, and, that too, in a second appeal which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellants, do not arise for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 28, 2009 JUDGE satish