1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 322 of 2009. Date of Decision: 19.1.2009 *** Mahabir Singh .. Appellant VS. Jaswant Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Bijender Dhankar, 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 20.2.2008 and 19.9.2008 respectively, by dint of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of a contract and permanent injunction has been partly decreed for recovery of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization. It emerges out from the record that both the Courts below on the strength of oral testimonies of plaintiff, Azad Singh, the attesting witness and PW4 Yashwant Kumar, the scribe coupled with documents produced by the plaintiff-respondent viz. agreement, affidavit and receipt Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 respectively, concurrently held that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the respondent-plaintiff to appellant-defendant for a period of six months, carrying interest @ 6%, which the latter failed to return despite expiry of prescribed period. Although the stand of the defendant was that the whole transaction was fabricated since the date typed on mortgage agreement was 26.12.1995 while the stamp paper on which it was typed, was released on 27.12.1995, but the same was found to be a typographical error and that apart except his bald statement, no cogent and 2 convincing evidence was produced by the appellant in support of his allegations of forgery and fraud. Thus, the Courts below rightly directed the appellant-defendant to make the payment of amount of Rs.40,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Even the learned Appellate Court below was justified in awarding the costs of the suit to the plaintiff, while accepting his cross-appeal by observing that since it was a money decree, the plaintiff is to be provided with the costs of the suit, which recourse was not adopted by the learned trial court while partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 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 January 19,2009 Jiten