RSA No.3482 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3482 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:28.10.2010 Jasmail Kaur & Ors. .....appellants Versus Sanjeev Kumar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellants Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed, along with interest. The decree of the trial court reads as under: “This suit coming for final disposal before me (Sh. Bhajan Ram) PCS, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bathinda in the presence of Sh. V.K. Goel, counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Thana Singh counsel for the defendants, it is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed with costs for the recovery of ` 4,29,760/- alongwith pendent lite and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realisation. All the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the plaintiff being the legal heirs of deceased Buta Singh.” RSA No.3482 of 2009(O & M) 2 This appeal came up for hearing on 10.05.2010 before this Court and the following order was passed: Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the appellants. ...... This is an appeal directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. In a suit for recovery the appellants/defendants pleaded that the pronote on the basis of which the same has been filed is forged. The loan was allegedly taken by Buta Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 and 3, who has since died. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the expert witness produced found that the pronote had been filled up with different inks and this lent suspicion to the execution of the pronote. The first Appellate Court while negating the plea of the appellants has observed that the amount which was mentioned in figures has also been mentioned in words. It has further been qualified by mentioning the half of the amount which was in dispute. In this view of the matter, the first Appellate Court relied upon the pronote to decree the suit of the respondent. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below. Even if there would have been a manipulation in the pronote as is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, the same could have been done where the amount has been mentioned in figures, but under no circumstances the same could be manipulated where the amount is mentioned in words which is further qualified by RSA No.3482 of 2009(O & M) 3 mentioning the half of the said amount. Thus, there does not appear to be any misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. The thumb impression of said Buta Singh appearing on the pronote has largely gone unexplained, hence this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments and the suit has been rightly decreed. The appeal therefore warrants dismissal in the absence of any substantial question of law. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that he is willing to settle the matter in the event of some concession being given to him qua the interest component. Notice of motion only qua the aforesaid limited extent for 31.8.2010. sd/- 10.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE In pursuance of the aforesaid order, today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has offered to forego future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the aforesaid offer is not accepted by learned counsel for the appellants as per his instructions from the appellant. This Court has already found this appeal without any merit vide order dated 10.05.2010, as aforesaid. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.10.2010 neenu