RSA No.3461 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3461 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:02.12.2010. M/s Guru Nanak Electronics and others ...Appellants Versus Canara Bank ...Respondent CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed for recovery of `7,42,531/- with costs and interest @ 13.77% per annum with monthly rests and the defendants were directed to make the payment of the decretal amount within a period of 6 months, failing which the plaintiff-bank was held entitled to sell the mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants for recovery. The defendants have admitted an amount of `2,00,000/- having been obtained as loan but denied the amount of `5,00,000/-. It was admitted that the loan and mortgage documents were signed by the defendants but the amount was alleged to have been withdrawn by the Manager of the plaintiff/bank. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the report of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, the document, through which the amount was withdrawn, was not signed by the defendants, therefore, he denied the liability in respect of the said amount. RSA No.3461 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record with his able assistance. The plaintiff/bank has led voluminous evidence on record which has been discussed by the learned Courts below in detail. In this regard, observations made in para 18 of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court need specific mention, which are as under: - “18. The defendants examined DW1 Mohinder Singh. In the cross examination, he admitted his signatures on each page of Ex.P2 to Ex.P8, Ex.P19, Ex.P20, Ex.P8/A, Ex.P2/A, Ex.P22, Ex.P9, Ex.P17 and Ex.P21. Ex.P7 is a letter admittedly signed by Mohinder Singh. There is stamp of Guru Nanak Electronics on it, in which it is written that they came to know that the stamp duty of some of the above instruments had been revised, hence they have executed fresh set of loan papers on 12.05.2000 with the stamp duty applicable as on date. On Ex.P8 also there is stamp of the defendant No.1 and bears the signatures of Mohinder Singh. This document is also of 12.05.2000. Ex.P8/A is on the letter pad of Guru Nanak Electronics and it bears the date 12.05.2000. As per this letter a request was made that their OCC limit of Rs.2,00,000/- kindly convert this limit in to SOD of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no explanation of the defendants, how this letter on the letter pad of the defendants written on 12.05.2000 was executed. It also falsify the case of the defendant. The plaintiff has fully proved the documents executed in the year 1998 and on 12.05.2000. Ex.P19 is supplemental agreement, Ex.P20 is letter of renewal. Signatures on this letter is also admitted. It is alleged of 12.05.2000. Ex.P21 is a letter of acknowledgment of RSA No.3461 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ***** debt and security. Stamp papers were purchased on 09.05.2000. Therefore, all this shows that the version of the defendants/appellants that these documents were got signed at the initial stage of the granting the loan and were not executed by them, cannot be believed.” Insofar as the Handwriting and Fingerprint report is concerned, that cannot be relied upon because the said Expert was not produced out of fear of cross-examination. Thus, from the voluminous documentary evidence available on record, I do not find any question of law much-less substantial involved in this appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as such the present appeal is found to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs. December 02, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE