IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1508 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.4.2009 Harnek Singh … Appellant. versus. Vijay Kumar … Respondent CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appellant, Harnek Singh, was the defendant in the suit for recovery preferred against him by plaintiff, Vijay Kumar, for recovery of Rs.1,03,360/- (Rs.76,000/- as principal and Rs.27,360/- as interest). In the suit, plaintiff claimed that defendant, Harnek Singh, borrowed from him a sum of Rs.76,000/- in cash on account of his house- hold needs, thereby agreeing to return the same with interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month on demand by the plaintiff. In lieu of the said loan, a pronote and receipt dated 25.12.2002 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant did not return any amount either towards principal or interest in spite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff through his counsel served a legal notice upon the defendant but to no avail and this led to filing of present suit by the plaintiff for recovery as mentioned above. Upon notice of the suit, defendant filed written statement wherein he denied to have taken any loan or having executed any pronote and receipt and alleged that the same are false and fabricated documents. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.76,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of pronote dated 25.12.2002, Exhibit P-1, till filing of the suit and at the rate of 9 per RSA No. 1508 of 2009 -2- cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decree and at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount against the defendant. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008. This is how the defendant has come up in this second appeal. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties have concurrently held that the plea of the defendant that the pronote and receipt so produced by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents or that he never signs but only puts his thumb- impressions, is not correct since his own witnesses have demolished his case through their evidence. More so, defendant while appearing as DW-1, has in his affidavit conceded that his signatures are there on the pronote and receipt. To falsify the allegation of the defendant, his own witness namely DW Avtar Singh in his affidavit as well as cross-examination has deposed that the pronote and receipt bear the signatures of defendant Harnek Singh. This witness has even stated that the defendant knows Punjabi and also knows how to sign. The Courts below have thus, held that all these pleas have been taken by the defendant just to wriggle out from the responsibility of returning the loan amount so received by him under pronote and receipt dated 25.12.2002, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 respectively. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. April 16, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE