-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4072 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 11, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4072 of 2010 (O&M). Gurdev Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Bhan Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr.P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Dheeraj Narula, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant-appellant Gurdev Singh is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Bhan Singh for recovery of Rs.72068/- ( i.e. Rs.41,900/- principal amount and Rs.30168/- as interest calculated at the rate of 2 per cent per month upto 16.5.2002, the suit having -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4072 of 2010 (O&M). been filed on 17.5.2002) along with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs.41900/- from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of realization was decreed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgments I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below so far as merits of the case are concerned. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The defendant-appellant had borrowed Rs.41,900/- from the plaintiff-respondent on 17.5.1999 promising to repay the same on demand to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. The defendant had also executed a pronote and receipt on 17.5.1999 in this regard in the presence of the witnesses. The pronote and receipt were thumb marked by the defendant in the presence of the witnesses. Since the defendant failed to repay the loan amount, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant, in the written statement filed in the suit, denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and pleaded that the pronote and receipt were the result of fraud and manipulation. In his testimony as D.W.1, defendant Gurdev Singh simply denied his thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt in question and deposed that the same were the result of -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4072 of 2010 (O&M). fraud and misrepresentation played upon the defendant by the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to substantiate his claim. The defendant did not even choose to examine any Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert in this case. Had the defendant not executed the pronote and receipt in question in favour of the plaintiff, he would not have failed to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert. On the other hand, plaintiff Bhan Singh, besides examining himself in the case as P.W.1 to support his case, examined Gurmel Singh and Bhola Ram (P.W.2 and P.W.3, respectively), who are attesting witnesses of the pronote and receipt. Both Gurmel Singh (P.W.2) and Bhola Ram (P.W.3) categorically deposed that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.41,900/- from the plaintiff on 17.5.1999 and pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. No fault, therefore, can be found with the findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to the fact that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.41,900/- from the plaintiff on 17.5.1999 and pronote and receipt in respect thereof were executed by him (defendant) in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, on merits of the case, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. However, the plaintiff will be -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 4072 of 2010 (O&M). entitled to charge interest on the amount of Rs.41,900/- at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 17.5.1999 i.e the date when the amount in question was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, till its actual payment. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 11, 2011. JUDGE ak