R. S. A. No. 751 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 751 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 12, 2011 Chanan Singh .... Appellant Vs. Harnam Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Chanan Singh, having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Harnam Singh filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- alleging that the defendant, on 10.11.2000, borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month and executed pronote-cum-receipt for the same. The defendant, however, failed to repay the loan amount and interest thereon. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed Rs.4,00,000/- as principal loan amount and Rs.1,00,000/- as interest thereon R. S. A. No. 751 of 2010 2 till the filing of the suit @ 12% per annum i.e. 1% per month. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having borrowed Rs.4,00,000/-from the plaintiff or having executed any pronote and receipt. The defendant alleged that the impugned pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated and without consideration. There are material alterations in the pronote and receipt as figure of Rs.40,000/- has been converted to Rs.4,00,000/- by adding `zero'. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri, vide judgment and decree dated 06.10.2006, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.50,000/- as interest @ 6% per annum with future interest at the same rate from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff proved his case by himself stepping into the witness-box and by examining Naresh Kumar – witness of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Both of them broadly stated according to the plaintiff's version. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the R. S. A. No. 751 of 2010 3 witness-box and broadly stated according to his own version. The defendant also examined V. B. Bhatnagar (DW-1) – documents expert, who opined that figure of Rs.40,000/- has been changed to Rs.4,00,000/- in the pronote and receipt by adding `zero' later on. To rebut the same, the plaintiff also examined documents expert namely Navdeep Gupta (PW-3), who opined that there is no such addition or alteration in the figure. Execution of pronote stands proved by the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant, while examining the expert, did not think it proper to get his thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt compared with his specimen or standard thumb impressions, although science of comparison of finger prints is a perfect science. On the other hand, defendant in the witness-box, even denied his thumb impressions on the written statement. Thus, his denial of his thumb impressions on the pronote-cum-receipt is also unacceptable. Moreover, if the pronote-cum-receipt in question had not been thumb marked by the defendant, there would have been no occasion for the plaintiff to have made the alleged alteration in the figure of amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- by adding `zero' because if plaintiff had to fabricate the entire pronote-cum-receipt including thumb impressions of the defendant, he would have fabricated it with original figure of Rs.4,00,000/- without necessity of adding zero to figure of Rs.40,000/- or he could have fabricated another pronote-cum-receipt without any alteration. As regards alleged alteration, there are conflicting opinions of R. S. A. No. 751 of 2010 4 the documents experts examined by both the parties. However, version of defendant regarding alleged alteration is falsified because the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has also been written in words in the receipt. Pronote-cum- receipt is a composite document and since the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has also been written in words in receipt, the alleged alteration of the figure of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- by adding `zero' is completely ruled out. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against defendant-appellant after appreciating evidence on record. The said finding is supported by reasons recorded by the lower courts. The said finding is not depicted to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. May 12, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE