R. S. A. No. 2239 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2239 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 20, 2011 Balkar Singh .... Appellant Vs. Amar Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Balkar Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Amar Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.57,020/- alleging that the defendant, on 30.04.2004, borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.56% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but the defendant failed to pay the loan and interest amount. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed Rs.50,000/- as principal amount and Rs.7,020/- as interest on the aforesaid agreed rate of interest till filing of the R. S. A. No. 2239 of 2011 2 suit. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and having executed any pronote or receipt. It was pleaded that alleged pronote and receipt are result of fraud and are forged and fabricated documents, without consideration. The defendant alleged that he was employed as Siri (crop sharer) by the plaintiff on annual remuneration of Rs.40,000/- to be paid in two half yearly instalments and he was paid Rs.1,000/- at the time of engagement and at that time, plaintiff obtained defendant's signatures on blank papers on the pretext of preparing deed for engaging the defendant as crop-sharer. In August 2004, defendant demanded money from the plaintiff when defendant's wife was to deliver child, but plaintiff refused to pay the same. For want of treatment, newly born child died immediately after birth. The defendant then stopped working with the plaintiff in August 2004. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 1% per month from the date of pronote and receipt and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. R. S. A. No. 2239 of 2011 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff himself appeared as witness and examined both attesting witnesses of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt, one of whom also scribed the same. All of them broadly stated according to the plaintiff's version. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness box and examined his mother and wife as witnesses. They broadly stated according to the defendant's version. Execution of pronote-cum-receipt in question and payment of Rs.50,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant stand fully proved by statements of plaintiff and his two witnesses. Defendant's evidence is not sufficient to rebut the cogent evidence of the plaintiff. Defendant himself appeared in the witness box and examined his mother and wife only in support of his version. He did not examine any independent witness to depict that he was ever engaged as Siri (crop sharer) by the plaintiff or worked as such since June 2004 till August 2004. Plaintiff's evidence is cogent and credible. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant admitted his signatures on the impugned pronote and receipt. This admission further strengthens the plaintiff's case. On the contrary, the defendant denied his signatures on his own written statement, affidavit and Vakalatnama etc. It depicts that testimony of defendant is completely unreliable. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below R. S. A. No. 2239 of 2011 4 after analysing the evidence led by the parties. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. This appeal does not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law, for adjudication. On the contrary, fate of the lis depends on finding of fact, for which lower appellate court is the final Court. Even otherwise, on re-appreciation of evidence also, no other finding can be arrived at except the finding arrived at by the lower courts. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE