R.S.A.No. 87 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 87 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 04, 2009 Sukhmander Singh ---Appellant versus Karamjeet Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Vivek Goel,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Karamjeet Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 79,600/-. Civil Judge ( Junior Division),Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “As per the version of the plaintiff, defendant borrowed a cash loan of Rs. 65,000/- on 20.11.2003 and executed a pronote and receipt on the same date. The plaintiff approached the R.S.A.No. 87 of 2009(O&M) {2} defendant to repay the load amount many a times after showing the original pronote and receipt, but the defendant did not pay even a single penny to the plaintiff and at last flatly refused to repay the loan amount. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Upon notice, defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement and raised preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; plaint has not been verified properly; the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1(J) and the pronote and receipt does not bears the signatures of the defendant. On merits, defendant controverted all the averments of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount, as prayed for? OPP (2)Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 2% per month? OPP (3)Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4)Whether the suit is not properly verified? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiff has not complied with the Order 7 Rule 1-J of CPC, if so what is effect? OPD (6)Whether alleged pronote and receipts are forged and fabricated? OPD (7)Relief R.S.A.No. 87 of 2009(O&M) {3} After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that no interference by this Court is called for. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 20.11.2003. In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined Gurdial Singh-attesting witness as PW-2. Defendant, on the other hand, himself appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and examined DW-2 Sewak Singh. A perusal of pronote and receipt Exs. P-1 and P-2(shown by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments) reveals that the same are duly signed by the defendant. Appellant, on the other hand, has simply denied the execution of the pronote and receipt. Appellant had failed to establish by examining any hand writing expert that signatures on the pronote and receipt were not his. Apparently, in order to fill up the lacuna, an application under Order 41 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned lower appellate court for permission to lead additional evidence so that the appellant could get his signatures examined from any hand writing expert. The said application was rightly dismissed by the learned lower appellate court as at the appellate stage, appellant could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna. Parties knew their case and had to lead evidence in order to support their case. The finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the appellant cannot be interfered with in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2009 PARAMJIT