IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2643 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 9, 2011. Vishnu Kumar. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Smt. Anar Kaur. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.S.Gharoo, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Rewari dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rewari dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff for recovery of `72,500/- alongwith interest. RSA No.2643 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of `72,500/- alongwith interest on the plea that the said amount was borrowed by respondent-defendant from him on 01.08.2002 and the pronote and receipt was also executed by respondent-defendant in favour of appellant-plaintiff in token of receipt of the said amount on interest at the rate of 1% per month. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant denied having borrowed money on 01.08.2002. Plea has been taken that she is old lady of 90 years of age and illiterate lady and that she was never in need of such a huge amount. She has also taken the plea that she never executed any pronote and receipt in favour of appellant-plaintiff and the same does not bear her signatures. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Rewari. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that execution of pronote and receipt for an amount of `46,000/- has been proved by appellant-plaintiff by examining a witness of pronote and receipt and however, suit filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed by both the courts below merely on the ground that finger print expert has not been 2 RSA No.2643 of 2010 examined. It has been further contended that when a witness to the transaction has been examined there is no necessity to examine the finger print expert. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. As per the case of appellant-plaintiff a loan of `58,000/- was advanced to respondent-defendant and she executed the pronote and receipt in token of the receipt of said amount. However, pronote and receipt, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of appellant-plaintiff shows that the same was for `46,000/- only. When the appellant-plaintiff appeared in the witness-box he stated that he advanced `46,000/-. Hence, the contents of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and deposition of appellant-plaintiff is not in consonance with the pleadings of appellant- plaintiff. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of appellant-plaintiff. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 3 RSA No.2643 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 9, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 4