IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 153 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.2.2010 Sombir. ....... Appellant. Versus Dilbag Singh. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: None for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.460-C of 2010 The application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in court fee. R.S.A.No.153 of 2010 and C.M.Nos.459-C and 461-C of 2010 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 27.11.2008 and 28.8.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Hisar (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). C.M.No.459-C of 2010 has been R.S.A.No.153 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... moved for condonation of 43 days' delay in the filing of the appeal, whereas C.M.No.461-C of 2010 has been made for staying the operation of the impugned judgments during the pendency thereof. The appellant is the defendant against whom a suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 2% per month was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the evidence produced on record for recovery of Rs.2,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of its filing till the final realization and the appeal preferred by the appellant against its judgment & decree was dismissed by the first appellate Court. On 18.1.2010 when the appeal came up for hearing for the first time, learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the entire suit was based on Exhibit P1, which is a receipt and that a perusal thereof showed that a pronote had been executed which was not produced on record by the respondent. He had accordingly prayed for grant of some time to show the said document. Today, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant nor the document as aforesaid has been produced despite the fact that the case has been called out twice over during the course of the day, leaving the Court with no other option but to peruse the file including the impugned judgments. It has been alleged in the grounds of appeal that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside as there is manipulation in the pronote and interest has been added with R.S.A.No.153 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... different ink. It has further been alleged that there is serious discrepancy in the terms of the pronote which cannot be termed to be valid piece of document and consequently, the Courts below having not appreciated these aspects, have wrongly decreed the suit of the respondent. The appellant had pleaded forgery in the pronote, but there is no material on record from where such an inference can be drawn. Before resorting to the filing of the suit, the respondent had given a legal notice to the appellant to which he replied as well. The suit was filed after almost eight months of the reply submitted by the appellant. Had there been any forgery in the pronote which was made known to the appellant, there would have been some complaint by him to some authority. The pleas which the appellant took in the written statement were totally contrary to the reply which he had filed to the legal notice. The respondent, on the other hand, got compared the signatures of the appellant on Exhibit P1 from a handwriting and fingerprint expert with his admitted signatures and also produced the expert in evidence as PW3, who proved his report Exhibit PW3/A and testified that the signatures on Exhibit P1 tallied with the admitted signatures of the appellant. In view of this evidence on record, there was no other conclusion which could have been arrived at by the Courts below except to say that the receipt, Exhibit P1, had been validly executed by the appellant in lieu of the amount he had taken from the respondent. The validity of the document having been established which is purely a question of fact, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments, more-so because no R.S.A.No.153 of 2010 (O&M) -4- .... question of law, much less a substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for consideration of this Court. Moreover, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 43 days and there is no cogent explanation for condonation thereof. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as time barred, as well as on merits. C.M.No.459-C and 461-C of 2010 are also dismissed in view of the above. February 10,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge