RSA NO.2334 OF 2006 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 17.7.2008 Hari Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Lal Singh …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondent Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,82,600/- against the RSA NO.2334 OF 2006 :2: defendant/appellant on the basis of the pronote and receipt dated 25.1.1999. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to return the same with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month and in consideration of the loan, he executed the pronote and the receipt. The defendant, however, denied the execution of the pronote and the receipt and pleaded that the same are forged and fictitious documents and do not bear the signatures of the defendant. He further pleaded that the plaintiff has forged the signatures of the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that the son of the plaintiff is a Commission Agent and has great influence with the police and on account of his influence, he has got a case registered against the defendant under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- “1.Whether the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- from the plaintiff and in lieu thereof executed a pronote and receipt, if so its effect? OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest? If so at what rate? OPP 3.Whether the alleged pronote and receipt dated RSA NO.2334 OF 2006 :3: 25.1.99 are forged and fictitious documents? OPD 4.Whether the pronote and receipt are not properly stamped. 5.Relief.” Both the parties led their evidence in support of their pleadings. Plaintiff produced Kuldeep Singh, Senior Lab Attendant, as PW1 who has proved the pronote and also the entry in his register as Ex.P1. Baljinder Singh, PW3, attesting witness also appeared to prove the pronote and the receipt. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant examined one Kamaljit Singh, Namberdar and Handwriting Expert R.V. Vashishat. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 1.3.2005. An appeal preferred therefrom in the Court of District Judge, Sangrur also resulted in dismissal vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.2006. Lower appellate court has affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. Mr.Amit Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the report of the Handwriting Expert, R.P.Vashishat is sufficient to dismiss the suit in as much as the expert has given the report that the signatures on the documents have been traced. It is relevant to note RSA NO.2334 OF 2006 :4: and for which there is a specific finding that the defendant took all possible dishonest pleas. He pleaded that he does not sign whereas it has been proved on record that he is 8th pass and not an illiterate. With a view to convince the trial court he put his thumb-impression on the written statement rather than appending his signatures. Under these circumstances, the courts below have disbelieved the defendants as also the expert whose evidence is said to be based upon the signatures which were procured by the defendant after the signing of the pronote and receipt. There are concurrent findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises. No interference is warranted. No merit. Appeal is dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 17.7.2008 MFK