IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA. No. 3923 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.2.2011. Inder Singh --Appellant Versus Smt. Krishna --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr. R.S. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Chahal, Advocate for the respondent. *** SABINA.J Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 15.12.1996. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that after borrowing the amount in question defendant had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff and had agreed to repay the loan amount on demand. However, the defendant had failed to repay the loan amount. Hence suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant in his written statement denied the execution of pronote and receipt. It was averred that the pronote and receipts were result of fraud and fabrication. It was further averred that parties were related to each other. Defendant and Major Sultan Ram were residing separately. Defendant was having blind faith in Sultan Ram. Sultan Ram had fabricated another pronote and receipt dated 2.8.1993 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and ex- parte decree and judgement were passed in favour of Sultan Ram. Other pronotes and receipts were also got executed from the defendant in favour of relatives of the plaintiff. In all these said pronotes and receipts Manphool Singh was the attesting witness and the scribe was Captain Daya Nand. RSA. No. 3923 of 2009 -2- The signatures of the defendant might have been obtained on the pronote and receipt under the influence of liquor. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.3,44,000/- from the defendant along with interest and costs?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 3. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. 4. Whether the present suit is false and frivolous and the same has been filed to harass the defendant?OPD 5. Relief.” Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgement and decree dated 28.7.2008. The said judgement and decree were upheld in appeals filed by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant by the District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgement and decree dated 4.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery basing his claim on the pronote and receipt in question. Defendant had denied the execution of the said pronote and receipt. In order to prove the execution of the pronote and receipt plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box as PW2 and examined PW-1 Shamsher Singh Malik, Handwriting Expert, who after examining the questioned signatures of the defendant on the pronote and receipt with his standard signatures opined that they were of the same person. Plaintiff also examined the scribe of the pronote and receipt. Defendant on the other hand took up the plea that his signatures might have been obtained under RSA. No. 3923 of 2009 -3- the influence of liquor. Thus, the signatures of the defendant stood proved on the pronote and receipt. Defendant had, however, failed to establish the fraud played upon him at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt. Parties are related to each other. In these circumstances, the defendant might have borrowed money from the plaintiff and other relatives and had executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the persons, who had advanced loan to him. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the defendant. No substantial question of law arises in this Regular Second Appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE 10.2.2011. lucky