RSA No. 1764 of 2009 (1) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1764 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Harnek Singh ......Appellant Versus Santosh Rani and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Anuj Balian, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for recovery on the basis of pronote dated 15.11.2002 in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was decreed along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of pronote till the date of decree and 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realisation. The finding that the pronote is proved to be executed is based upon the statement of attesting witness of pronote, namely, PW-2 Ram Sarup and the Handwriting expert Shri Vikram Raj Singh RSA No. 1764 of 2009 (2) Chauhan, who appeared as PW3. On the other hand, the evidence of the defendant and his attesting witness has been considered and not found to be reliable. Both the Courts have appreciated the entire evidence to return a finding of fact in respect of the execution of the pronote and that it was for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. Such finding is sought to be disputed by re-appreciation of evidence in the second appeal. However, it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 11-09-2009 ds