RSA No. 1937 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 5700-C of 2009 C.M. No. 5701-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1937 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.5.2009 Swaran Singh … Appellant Versus Darshana Devi and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No. 5700-C of 2009 : C.M. is allowed. Applicant-appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in the court-fee. C.M. No. 5701-C of 2009: C.M. is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Legal representatives of plaintiff, Kewal Krishan (since deceased) as mentioned in para 3 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as respondents. RSA No. 1937 of 2009: This is defendant’s second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff Kewal Krishan has been decreed. Plaintiff Kewal Krishan, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives who, as stated above, have been brought on record as respondents in his place, in his suit pleaded that defendant Swaran Singh borrowed from him a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on 5.5.2004 at 2 per cent rate of interest per month and in lieu thereof, executed pronote and receipt dated 5.5.2004, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 respectively. Thereafter, defendant did not return the same which led to filing of present suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendant denied the RSA No. 1937 of 2009 2 execution of Exhibits P- 1 and P-2, i.e. pronote and receipt respectively; rather stated that the same are forged and fabricated documents. Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on record, vide its judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.7,62,125/- along with pendent elite interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the principal loan amount only, till realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, defendant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record, have concurrently found that the defendant did not even make an attempt to get compared the signatures on the documents, viz,, pronote and receipt (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) from a document expert, and has thus failed to prove that the same are forged and fabricated; rather on the contrary the plaintiff and the witnesses produced by him have categorically stated that in their presence, the amount of Rs.6.5 lacs was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff at the rate of 2 per cent rate of interest per month and in lieu thereof, the defendant executed afore-stated pronote and receipts, Exhibits P-1 and P-2. The defendant has even failed to prove any enmity between him and the plaintiff as well as between him and the scribe and the attesting witnesses. So much so, the plaintiff was not cross- examined by the defendant in regard to source of money which was allegedly advanced to him. The Courts below have further negatived the plea of the defendant, and rightly so, that the plaintiff used to advance money to various persons on interest and thus, is a money lender. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. May 15, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE RSA No. 1937 of 2009 3