RSA No.147 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.147 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 18.01.2010. Sukhdev Singh .……Appellant Versus Suraina Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.443-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.444-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.447-C of 2010 Deficiency in Court fee is said to have been made good. Delay if any in making the deficiency in Court fee good, is condoned. RFA No.147 of 2010 and CM No.446-C of 2010 Sukhdev Singh defendant has preferred this second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Suraina Singh-respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs.79,800/- against the defendant-appellant alleging that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.11.2002 and executed pronote and receipt and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month. However, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount and interest in spite of demand. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Rs.60,000 as RSA No.147 of 2010 (O & M) -2- principal amount and Rs.19800/- as interest thereon, till filing of the suit at the reduced rate of 1% per month only. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and alleged that the pronote and receipt are illegal and null and void without consideration and result of fraud. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patti vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2008, decreed the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.60,000/- as principal amount with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt till filing of the suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that learned Trial Court observed that the alleged signatures of defendant on pronote and receipt when compared with the signatures on written statement, power of attorney, deposition, list of documents, memo, address form, process fee form and list of witnesses appeared to be of one and the same person on a close look with naked eye. It was argued that the learned Trial Court without help of expert could not have arrived at this conclusion. The contention cannot be accepted. The conclusion of the trial Court is based not solely on the aforesaid observation, but on appreciation of other evidence led by the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined both marginal witnesses of the receipt and they have supported the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff also himself appeared in the witness box. The finding of the trial Court has been RSA No.147 of 2010 (O & M) -3- affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Alleged substantial question of law as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the appeal are only questions of facts which cannot be raised in the instant second appeal. Along with appeal, appellant has moved application bearing CM No.446-C of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) for additional evidence alleging that the appellant intends to get the alleged pronote and receipt and his signatures on his statement made in the trial Court examined from handwriting expert. However, no reason has been assigned as to why it was not so done when the defendant had opportunity to lead his evidence. No ground has been made out for permitting the proposed additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed. For reasons mentioned hereinabove, I find no illegality in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in second appeal. The instant second appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 18.01.2010 A. Kaundal