R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.11.2008 Sadhu Singh .....Appellant versus Sukhdev Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The present regular second appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 passed by the lower appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2005 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of pronote and receipt, i.e. 27.12.2000 till the date of realization, was partially modified to the extent that the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the promissory note, i.e. 27.12.2000 till the date of institution of the suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution till realization. On 27.12.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 -2- Rs.1,77,000/- on interest @ 2% per month from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt therefor in his favour. The defendant having failed to repay the borrowed amount, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/-. The defendant controverted the averments made in the plaint by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the defendant neither took the loan from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt therefor in his favour, whereas, on the other hand the defendant had taken the land of the plaintiff on lease and settled all the accounts in that regard but the plaintiff obtained his signatures on some blank papers which were later on converted into the pronote and receipt. Thus, the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote, i.e. 27.12.2000, till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 modified that of the trial court to the extent that the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the promissory note, i.e. 27.12.2000, till the date of institution of the suit and at the rate of 6% R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 -3- per annum from the date of institution till realization. Except the above mentioned modification with regard to the claim of interest, the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the Courts below but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below had concurrently held that execution of the pronote, Exhibit P1, and the receipt, Exhibit P2, had been duly proved by the plaintiff by examining the attesting witness of the pronote and receipt. Moreover, admission of his signatures on the said documents by the defendant lent support to the case of the plaintiff. Neither the interest which had been awarded is excessive nor the findings which had been recorded regarding the debt for the recovery of which, the suit had been decreed, are erroneous and, therefore, no error could be found in the findings recorded by the courts below. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. November 4, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE