1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3768 of 2008. Date of Decision: 2.3.2009 *** Bhagwan Chand .. Appellant VS. Gurmeet Chand .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below the defendant has approached this Court through this regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the the trial court as well as first appellate court dated 27.4.2006 and 3.4.2008 respectively, by dint of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery has been decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- i.e. Principal amount along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of execution of pronote and receipt till the decision of the suit, besides future interest @ 6% per annum. It is apparent that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery against the defendant-appellant while relying upon the receipt and pronote dated 14.5.2001 whereby the defendant took a loan of Rs.1,10,000/-. The aforesaid loan was to carry interest @ 2% P.M. From the facts it emerges out that although the stand of the defendant was that the above-said pronote and receipt are forged one and the thumb impressions appearing thereon are not of him, but nothing worth was produced by him to substantiate his said plea. Besides his bald statement and self serving statements of DW.2 Rajinder Kumar, no cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the appellant in support of his allegations of forgery and fraud. Even no expert was produced to prove that the thumb impressions appearing on the receipt and pronote are not of him. That apart nothing was 2 produced by the appellant to show any alleged business transactions with Om Parkash, the alleged relative of the plaintiff, during the course of which his signatures were obtained by them on blank papers, as alleged by the defendant. Thus, both the courts below on the strength of testimonies of PW.1 Hardip Singh, the scribe of the receipt and pronote and PW3 Ved Parkash, the attesting witness coupled with that of plaintiff himself, who in one voice deposed about the execution of said document by the defendant in their presence and the fact that in the register of deed writer there was an entry Ex.P3 bearing the thumb impressions of defendant, concurrently held the due execution of pronote and receipt dated 14.5.2001. Thus, once the instrument was found to be duly executed by defendant, the Court below while drawing presumption rightly held that it was for consideration and that since the defendant-appellant failed to return the loan amount, therefore, he is liable to return the same along with interest, as referred to above. The findings arrived at by both the courts below need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 2,2009 Jiten