IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 111
Regular Second Appeal No.206 of 2022 (O & M)
Date of Decision: November 18, 2022
Balbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs
..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Lachhman Sharma
..... RESPONDENT(S)
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA ...
PRESENT: - Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, for the appellants.
. . .
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral) This is defendant's regular second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.
The facts in brief are, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery claiming that the appellant-defendant (since deceased, through LRs) had obtained a loan of ` 5 lac from him on 17.12.2008 by executing a pronote and a receipt, which was duly witnessed by Navneet Singla and Mehar Singh. The defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.56% per month, but the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 1.50% per month, i.e., 18% per annum.
Both the Courts below based on the evidence led, have concurrently held that the pronote as well as the receipt have been duly proved on record. Even the thumb impressions of the defendant on the pronote, Exh.P1, and receipt, Exh.P2, have been established by examining a Hand Writing & Finger Prints Expert. The plea of forgery taken by the defendant also stands falsified from a report of the Assistant Manager, AVIN KUMAR 2022.11.24 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.t RSA No.206 of 2022 [2] Forgery Detection Cell for General Manager, India Security Press Nashik Road. The report dated 28.04.2017, stated that two Indian revenue stamps, Exh.P3 and Exh.P4, pertained to the year 1997 and four Indian revenue stamps, Exh.P1 to Exh.P2, Exh.P5 and Exh.P6, pertained to the year 2002. Therefore, there was no basis for the defendant to take the plea that the pronote and receipt were forged. The other plea taken by the defendant regarding financial incapacity of plaintiff to advance the loan has also been dis-proved on record. The plaintiff has examined Pavittar Singh, Clerk, Oriental Bank of Commerce, as PW-4, who has proved the plaintiff's statement of account, Exh.P5, to the effect that the latter withdrew an amount of ` 2.5 lac from his account on 17.12.2008, when the loan in question was advanced to the defendant.
The aforesaid findings recorded by both the Courts below do not suffer from any error of law nor any could be pointed out by the learned counsel. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Dismissed.
Since the main petition itself stands decided, all pending applications, if any, are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
(Tribhuvan Dahiya)
Judge
November 18, 2022
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
AVIN KUMAR
2022.11.24 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.t