RSA No. 1169 of 2011 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1169 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.03.2011. Sarabjit Singh .......Appellant Vs. Maldeep Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Virk, Advocate for Mr. Shivraj Angi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 2,03,280/- basing his claim on the pronote and receipt dated 6.7.2000. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the defendant had taken a loan of ` 1,32,000/- from the plaintiff and had agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 1.50% per month. However, the defendant had failed to repay the said amount on demand. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff had concealed the material facts from the court. Defendant had borrowed ` 50,000/- from Gurdev Singh (grandfather of the plaintiff) in the year 1997. Defendant had RSA No. 1169 of 2011 (O&M) - 2- repaid the said amount in installments. At the time of advancing the loan, the grandfather of the plaintiff had taken the signatures of the defendant on blank pronote and receipt. After the death of Gurdev Singh, the plaintiff had misused the said pronote and receipt. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 2,03,280/- from the defendant? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPP 3. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged documents? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2010, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ` 1,32,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and RSA No. 1169 of 2011 (O&M) - 3- the same was dismissed by District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The pronote and receipt in question dated 6.7.2000 are Ex.P-1 and Ex. P-2, respectively. Both bear the signatures of the defendant. Plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as PW-2, who gave his opinion that the questioned signatures on the pronote and receipt matched with the standard signatures of the defendant. The appellant-defendant had not examined any Handwriting Expert to rebut the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, examined by the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt. Rather, the plea taken by the defendant is that his signatures were taken on the blank pronote and receipt by the grandfather of the plaintiff. The defendant, however, failed to establish the said plea. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the defendant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 08, 2011 Gurpreet