RSA No.1726 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1726 of 2007 Decided on :29.01.2010 Jagjit Singh ... Appellant versus Mukhtiar Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent- plaintiff for recovery on the basis of pronote dated 17.02.2001. Both the courts below have held that the pronote and receipt have been duly proved. Following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are perverse and are based on surmises and conjectures or not? ii) Whether the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 have been wrongly relied upon by the learned courts below while passing the impugned judgment and decree or not? iii) Whether the respondent is a money lender without RSA No.1726 of 2007 -2- having any license and as such, the suit was maintainable or not? iv) Whether the alleged to have judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are erroneous and are not based on evidence proved on record or not? Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only question No.(iii). He has taken me though the statement of PW-1. No doubt PW-1 has admitted that 3/4 other suits have been filed by him for recovery yet, in my opinion, this matter has been correctly considered by the ld. Lower Appellate Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalchilda Wallang and others versus U.Lokendra Suiam 1988 CCC(44) SC to hold that a few isolated transactions would not make a person a moneylender. Even the findings regarding due execution of the promissory note cannot be disputed since as against the evidence of the witnesses and the scribe produced by the plaintiff-respondent, the appellant led not evidence in the shape of expert. As noticed by the courts below the science of finger printing is an exact science, and thus, it was open to the appellant to prove that the thumb impressions on the pronote and the receipt were not his. Consequently, holding the proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. January 29, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE