IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 3409-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 1151 of 2008 Date of decision: 22-1-2009 Angrej Singh @ Gurmej Singh … Appellant versus Raj Kumar … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No.3409-C of 2008 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1151 of 2008: The present appellant, Angrej Singh @ Gurmej Singh, was the defendant in the suit for recovery preferred by plaintiff-Raj Kumar. Vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2006, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the said principal amount from the date of pronote and receipt dated 1.5.2003 till realization of the same from the defendant. Defendant filed an appeal which though was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.2007 but the interest as granted by the trial Court was modified and the plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of execution of pronote and receipt i.e. 1.5.2004 till institution of the suit and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization. Both the Courts below upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have concurrently found that no evidence had been led by the defendant to substantiate his plea that since he is dealing with the plaintiff, they must have procured his thumb-impression at the time when they had been selling their crop to the firm of the plaintiff and as such, pronote and R.S.A. No. 1151 of 2008 -2- receipt dated 1.5.2003 are forged and fabricated documents. The suit of the defendant for rendition of accounts has also been found to have been filed much after filing of the present suit and as such, it was held that the present suit cannot be held to be a counter-blast to the said suit or barred under Order 2 rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts below have also found on the strength of the evidence of the plaintiff and the evidence of the marginal witness coupled with the report of the Hand-writing and Finger Prints Expert that the thumb-impressions on the pronote and receipt are that of defendant Angrej Singh. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 22, 2009 JUDGE JS