IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.902 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.2.2010 Gurdeep Singh ....Appellant Versus New Thind Trading Company ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.2558-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.2559-C of 2010 C.M. is allowed. The appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in the court fee. C.M.No.2561-C of 2010 Having regard to the contents of the application, the same is allowed and delay of 187 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.2560-C of 2006 in/and R.S.A.No.902 of 2010 The suit for recovery filed by the respondent was initially dismissed by the learned trial court but in appeal the findings were reversed. R.S.A.No.902 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant states that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are incorrect, erroneous and liable to be set aside. He states that the Bahi entries have been produced which are admissible in evidence but the fact remains that the respondent failed to establish his case that it was a loan transaction of Rs.60,000/- which amount was taken by the appellant. He contends that it is the admitted case between the parties that the appellant used to sell his crop with the respondent but the respondent has not been able to establish whether this amount was on account of selling of crop or was a loan. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant denied his signatures on the entries appearing in the Bahi but the respondent by way of cogent evidence in the shape of report of handwriting expert examined the signatures of the appellant appended to the Bahi entry of Rs.60,000/- which amount had been advanced as loan for household purpose and found the signatures to be that of the appellant. In this view of the matter, when the findings of fact have been determined against the appellant, there is no reason to interfere in the second appeal. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 26.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss