R.S.A. No. 3739 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3739 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2008 Satbir ..Appellant v. Ram Chander .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. P. Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant is in second appeal before this Court against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 54,600/- along with interest was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit with the contention that the appellant-defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 20.6.1998 from him. The loan was carrying interest @ 2% per month. As acknowledgement of the loan, pronote and receipt were executed on which the appellant-defendant had put his thumb impressions. As the loan amount was not returned in spite of issuance of registered notice dated 11.10.2000, the suit was filed. The defendant-appellant in defence stated that in fact he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from Kure son of Pehlad, resident of Siwana and pronote and receipt were executed therefor. It was at that time that certain more papers were got thumb marked from him which have been misused. Otherwise, he had not taken any loan from the respondent-plaintiff. In support of the claim, the respondent-plaintiff examined four witnesses, who corroborated the version stated in the plaint and also stated that money was paid to the appellant- defendant in their presence, who had thumb marked the pronote and the receipt. Report of the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert was also obtained, who opined that thumb impressions on the pronote and the receipt were matching with that of the appellant-defendant. The defence of the appellant-defendant was that he had never taken the loan from the respondent- plaintiff, as it was only from Kure son of Pehlad that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was R.S.A. No. 3739 of 2008 [2] borrowed which was returned, was found to be misconceived. It was in this factual matrix that the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff was decreed, as execution of the documents was proved beyond doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant even before this Court reiterated the same submissions as were made before the learned court below. He submitted that documents (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2), i.e., pronote and receipt respectively, as are sought to be relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff for claiming Rs. 54,600/- along with interest are nothing else but a result of fraud. However, there is nothing in support of the submission except own statement of the appellant-defendant. As against this, the respondent-plaintiff had not only appeared himself, but even produced Document Writer, witness to the documents and even Kure son of Pehlad, from whom the appellant- defendant had admitted that loan of Rs. 25,000/- was taken on the same date, besides Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. The evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff was unimpeachable as against bald statement of the appellant-defendant, which was not corroborated with any other material to suggest that the pronote, sought to be relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff, was a result of fraud. It has not been established that there was any connivance between the respondent-plaintiff and Kure, from whom the appellant-defendant had admittedly taken the loan. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact recorded on correct appreciation of material on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.12.2008 mk