IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 393 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 26, 2009 Sulakhan Singh ....Appellant Versus Charan Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.2,60,000/- was decreed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, on 27.1.2007. The plaintiff was also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant filed the first appeal, which has been dismissed by District Judge, Faridkot, on 15.5.2007. He is now before this Court by way of a second appeal preferred under Section 100 C.P.C. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant- appellant took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 18.6.2000 by executing a pronote and receipt vide which he agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month. The defendant, however, failed to repay the loan R.S.A. No. 393 of 2008 -2- amount. Claiming that an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- including interest upto date was due to him from the defendant, which he had not paid, the plaintiff filed the suit. While opposing the suit, the defendant denied taking of the loan or executing any such pronote or receipt. It was alleged that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. Prayer was, accordingly, made for dismissal of the suit. Both the Courts below held that the defendant had taken an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P1/A. The defendant failed to establish that the said pronote and receipt were the result of forgery. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.2,60,000/- alongwith interest on the same @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. In order to establish the execution of the pronote and receipt, the plaintiff examined PW1 Darshan Singh, Scribe, PW2 Baldev Singh, marginal witness of the pronote and the receipt and himself stepped into the witness box as PW3. Their testimonies were found to be consistent upon the material points. Though the defendant had pleaded that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents yet he did not lead any evidence in that regard. However, while coming up with the plea of forgery and fabrication of the receipt and pronote he admitted their execution. R.S.A. No. 393 of 2008 -3- The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that proper issues had not been framed by the trial Court cannot be accepted as there was no material on the record that he ever insisted for framing any other or further issues. Whatever issues were framed, both the parties were aware of the same and they led evidence in support of their respective stands. Another plea taken on behalf of the appellant is that the pronote and receipt were not prepared by a regular Deed Writer and, therefore, they could not be relied upon to decree the suit. There is no requirement of law that any such pronote or receipt could be scribed only by a regular Deed Writer. Anyone, who knows how to read and write can scribe any such document. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff was a stooge of Baldev Singh and Darshan Singh on whose behalf he was filing suits for recovery. The defendant used to sell his agricultural produce through the commission agency of M/s Baldev Singh and Company and Baldev Singh, proprietor of the said firm had obtained the thumb impressions of the defendant on a blank pronote and receipt. Baldev Singh was not fair in his dealings with the defendant and, therefore, the latter stopped selling his crop through him, which annoyed the former. Said Baldev Singh is relative of the plaintiff and in connivance with him manipulated the alleged pronote and receipt for filing the suit by the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 393 of 2008 -4- Learned counsel for the appellant was directed to refer to any material in the evidence to show that aforementioned Baldev Singh was relative of the plaintiff but he failed to do so. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was set up by Baldev Singh to file suit for recovery against the defendant on the basis of alleged pronote and receipt after having obtained his thumb impressions on the same. Mere fact that the plaintiff had filed some other suits also in which Baldev Singh was again the marginal witness is no ground to hold that it was Baldev Singh, who set up the plaintiff in filing the recovery suits. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below were not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence. These findings were neither perverse nor did they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They were, therefore, not open to challenge in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. No substantial questions of law, much less any of the law points as formulated by the appellant and mentioned in para 18 of the grounds of appeal, arises for determination. In view of the above, the appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 26, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1