RSA No. 2721 of 2004 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2721 of 2004 Date of decision: September 10,2008 Dinesh Kumar ..Appellant. Versus Baldev Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The plaintiff respondent filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs.2, 50, 700/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 7.1.1997 on the averments that on 7.1.1997, defendant took a cash loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- from him and agreed to repay on demand along with interest for the purpose of purchasing property. The defendant duly executed a pronote and receipt dated 7.1.1997. It is further pleaded that the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principle or interest thereon in spite of repeated demands and has finally refused to make any payment to the plaintiff on account of the said pronote and receipt. The defendant is liable to pay the principle amount along with interest and he is also liable to pay future interest at the agreed rate of 1 % P.M. till the date of realization. Hence this suit. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant stating that the defendant did not take any loan of Rs.2, 30,000/- for purchase of any property. Neither he had executed any pronote or receipt dated 7.1.1997 nor the same are fabricated documents. The plaintiff did not serve notice of demand and is not RSA No. 2721 of 2004 2 entitled to Rs.2, 30,000/- nor interest of Rs.20, 700/-. It was also stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any future interest as alleged. The trial Court held that the evidence led by the plaintiff proves that pronote Ex. P-1 and receipt Ex.P2 were executed by defendant after receiving a sum of Rs.2, 30,000/- and the documents are not result of fraud and fabrication nor there are any material alteration in the pronote and receipt. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.10.2002 decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of pronote and receipt. However, the present transaction was not commercial one and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan amount at the simple rate of interest i.e., 6 % P.A. from 7.1.1997 till actual realization. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8.3.2004. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “The findings of the trial Court on the remaining issues, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence of law, on the point and need no interference, the findings of the trial Court, on the remaining issues being correct are also affirmed.” Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the courts below have committed a serious error in not appreciating and considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He further argued that it has been proved on record that the appellant did not take any loan of Rs.2, 30,000/- nor he executed the alleged pronote and receipt. The appellant led evidence to show that he has also filed a civil suit in the nature of permanent injunction, praying that the respondent may be restrained from recovering money on the basis of false, fabricated and undated pronote which was got signed by the respondents and his associates under threat from the appellant and in that civil suit the RSA No. 2721 of 2004 3 plaintiff had filed written statement and has not mentioned the existence and execution of alleged pronote and receipt in question and this fact alone is sufficient to hold that the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated as in case the appellant had executed the alleged pronote and receipt, the respondent must have mentioned the same in his written statement filed in the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the courts below on appreciation of evidence had recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the execution of pronote and receipt by the appellant stood proved and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is baseless. A perusal of para No.4 of the written statement filed by Baldev Singh and others (Plaintiff-respondents) in the earlier civil suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, it has been stated as under:- “That para No.4 of the plaint is denied and not admitted. It is denied that the plaintiff was ghearod by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as alleged. It is denied that anybody forced the plaintiff to sign on undated pronote and receipt written in the hand of the defendant- Baldev Singh. However, the plaintiff is liable to pay another different amount to the defendant No.1 vide another transaction for which the defendant No.1 is going to file a separate Civil Suit for recovery. It is denied that the defendant Baldev Singh gave threats that he is police informer and get the plaintiff implicated in any false case. The allegations are totally false and baseless, hence vehemently denied.” From the perusal of the above, it is clearly established that after denying the assertion of the appellant that the plaintiff was forced by any body to sign on undated pronote and receipt. It has been specifically stated by the RSA No. 2721 of 2004 4 respondent that the appellant is liable to pay another different amount to defendant No.1 i.e., (respondents), vide another transaction for which he is going to file a separate civil suit for recovery. This contention of the respondent completely falsifies the argument of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to find any fault with the findings of the courts below. While dealing with the submissions of the appellant, the lower Appellate Court observed as under: - “ No doubt, in the written statement, a plea was taken up by the defendant, that the pronote and receipt were forged, false and fabricated document. He further stated that his signatures were obtained by coercive means, when two/three Police men were present there. In case the signatures and thumb impressions of the defendant, on pronote, Ex.P1, and receipt Ex.P2, were obtained by means of coercive measures in the presence of the police men, then he could file a complaint before the Higher Police Authorities or Administrative Authorities, in that respect, he could also file a complaint against the plaintiff, mentioning therein, the mode and manner, in which the signatures were obtained. He however, did not adopt any such method. Why he slept over this matter, for such a long time is unknown in his examination-in-chief, while appearing as DW2, he did not state even a single word, that his signatures were obtained on pronote, Ex.P1 and receipt, Ex.P2, by coercive means, when the police officials were present there,. The forgery or the fraud set up by a party, are required to be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil as well as in criminal case. In the instant case, the plea of forgery and fabrication, set up by the defendant, in the written statement has not been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, without any cogent and convincing evidence. The submission of the counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.” RSA No. 2721 of 2004 5 For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Dismissed. September 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE