RSA No.2349 of 2010(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2349 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 29.06.2010 Malook Singh .……Appellant Versus Moti Lal ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate for the Appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.7031-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.7032-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal. Defendant-Malook Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below has preferred the instant second appeal. Moti Lal-respondent filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.1,81,460/- alleging that the defendant on 15.12.1999 borrowed Rs.1,05,500/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but the defendant failed to pay back the principal amount or interest. The defendant inter alia pleaded that plaintiff's relative RSA No.2349 of 2010(O & M) -2- was employed in police station and in connivance with him, the plaintiff wanted to get a false case registered against the defendant. The plaintiff and the said police official might have got thumb impressions or signatures of the defendant on some blank papers which were later on converted into pronote. The defendant denied his signatures and thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt in question set up by the plaintiff. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations and denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,81,460/- with pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In first appeal preferred by the defendant, learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 slightly modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,81,460/- with both pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness-box and examined both attesting witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt whereas the defendant himself appeared in the witness-box and did not lead any other evidence-oral or documentary. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have arrived at concurrent finding RSA No.2349 of 2010(O & M) -3- that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,05,500/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.1999 and executed the pronote and receipt in question. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. On the other hand, defendant's version is thoroughly unreliable. The defendant in the written statement did not even specifically plead that his thumb impressions and signatures had been obtained on blank papers by the police official allegedly a relative of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendant took a wavering, indefinite and uncertain stand that his thumb impressions or signatures might have been obtained on blank papers. Moreover, in the witness-box, defendant stated that his thumb impressions and signatures had been obtained on blank papers and not on any printed form. However, admittedly pronote- cum-receipt in question is a printed form. Thus the entire version pleaded by the defendant is falsified by his own testimony. Moreover, if thumb impressions and signatures of the defendants had been obtained on blank papers by the police official, the defendant would not have remained silent for three years till the filing of the instant suit. The defendant during the interregnum of three years did not complain to any body that his thumb impressions and signatures had been obtained on blank papers by the police official. On the other hand, plaintiff's case is supported by both the attesting witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt. Learned counsel for the defendant referred to writing Ex.P-3 to contend that the amount depicted in the said writing is RSA No.2349 of 2010(O & M) -4- different from the amount depicted in pronote-cum-receipt. However, the defendant has not relied on writing Ex.P-3 nor has admitted the same and, therefore, cannot take shelter behind the same. Moreover, the defendant did not pay the lesser amount as admitted in writing Ex.P-3 and, therefore, the plaintiff has been held entitled to recover the amount as per pronote and receipt. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 29.06.2010. A. Kaundal