R.S.A.No. 2820 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2820 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:July 30, 2009 Mohinder Singh ---Appellant versus Mangi Jain ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Kuldeep Khandelwal,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Mangi Jain filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the defendant. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division),Dabwali vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- R.S.A.No. 2820 of 2009(O&M) {2} “As per plaintiff's version, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 88000/- from him on 9.1.2003 on interest at the rate of 2% per month which was to be returned on demand and that the defendant in token of the same executed a pronote and receipt which were scribed buy Sham Lal, Deed-Writer, Kalanwali in the presence of witnesses and that t6he defendant gave in writing in his own hand about receiving of Rs. 88,000/- in cash and also signed in Hindi but despite demand, the amount in question was not paid by the defendant. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he took plea of concealing true and material facts and averred that his signatures were obtained under pressure in police station because he had dealings with the plaintiff as he use to sell his crop at the shop of the plaintiff and that there was dispute with regard to his account. He thus denied taking the amount as alleged by the plaintiff.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the defendant has token a loan of Rs. 88,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt on 9.1.2003? OPP (2)Whether the defendant has not repaid the loan amount and plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery along with interest? OPD R.S.A.No. 2820 of 2009(O&M) {3} (3)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD (5)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 9.1.2003. As per the same, plaintiff had advance a loan of Rs. 88,000/- to the defendant and the defendant had executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined PW-1 Sh. Sham Lal, Deed Writer and Bhim Sen-PW-3. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed as per the contents of the complaint. The testimony of the plaintiff was duly corroborated by PW-1 and PW-3. PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert examined the disputed signatures of the defendant on the pronote and receipt and after comparing the same with the standard signatures opined that the questioned signatures and standard signatures belong to the same person. Appellant, however, had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff with regard to the due execution of the pronote and receipt. Appellant took up the plea that his signatures had been taken up forcibly on the pronote and receipt in the police station. However, appellant failed to prove on record any complaint made by him to the higher authorities in this regard. It has also been noticed by the courts below that the appellant had admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff had been rightly decreed. R.S.A.No. 2820 of 2009(O&M) {4} No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 30, 2009 PARAMJIT