IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 127 RSA-2205-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:03.07.2025 Jarnail Singh …..Appellant Vs. Gurdev Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mohit Khatkar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Duhan, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is defendant’s appeal against concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2. According to plain'ff (respondent herein), defendant (appellant herein) borrowed an amount of ₹12,00,000/- from him on 28.11.2011 and executed a pronote & receipt in this regard, which was scribed by Puneet Singh son of Jaswinder Singh. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the defendant and a4er understanding, he signed the same in the presence of a5es'ng witness Rajdeep Singh. Defendant had agreed to repay the amount along with interest @ 2% per month. Defendant failed to repay any amount despite legal no'ce dated 01.10.2013 and rather, sent reply dated 16.10.2013. With these submissions, plain'ff brought the suit seeking recovery of ₹17,54,400/-, which includes principal amount of ₹12,00,000/- and interest component of ₹5,54,400/- from 28.11.2011 to 11.11.2013. 3. Defendant opposes the claim by submi>ng that suit was not maintainable; that plain'ff did not have the financial capacity to pay the amount; that he (defendant) did not have any necessity to borrow the amount; that par'es had strained rela'ons as well as poli'cal rivalry and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2205-2025 (O&M) -2- that pronote & receipt relied by the plain'ff was forged and fabricated. 3. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par'es was taken on record. A4er apprecia'ng the evidence, trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31.03.2018 and the findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06.02.2025, while dismissing the appeal of the defendant- appellant. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, it is contended by learned counsel that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. 6. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and a4er going through the paper-book, this Court does not find any merit therein. 7. The statement of PW-1- plain'ff to the effect that defendant had borrowed an amount of ₹12,00,000/- from him on 28.11.2011 is supported by PW-2 Rajdeep Singh, the marginal witness of pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2), which are duly proved on record by both of them. The documents have been further proved by the tes'mony of PW-3 Dr. Inderjit Singh, handwri'ng and fingerprint expert by way of his report Ex.P6. 8. It will be relevant to reproduce the observa'ons made by the first Appellate Court in this regard: “Plain'ff in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and proved pronote and receipt Ex P1 and Ex P2. He also examined marginal witness Rajdeep Singh as PW2 who supported and corroborated the version of plain'ff. He further examined PW3 Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwri'ng and Fingerprint Expert who proved on record his report Ex P6 and phonographs Ex P7 to Ex P13. Both PW1 and PW2 have deposed regarding execu'on of pronote and receipt by the defendant a4er receiving Rs.12 lacs from the plain'ff in the presence of witness Puneet NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2205-2025 (O&M) -3- Singh and others. Although it is pleaded by the defendant that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents but no cogent or clinching evidence has been proved on record to prove the same. Appellant in his cross-examina'on admi5ed that he never filed any complaint to police authori'es regarding such alleged forgery and fabrica'on. He also never filed any complaint pertaining to the same in court. Further defendant also failed to rebut the evidence of PW3 Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwri'ng and Fingerprint Expert who gave his opinion on the thumb impressions on pronote by matching standard thumb impressions of Jarnail Singh to be of the one and the same person. So far as financial capacity of the plain'ff is concerned, he proved his bank account statement Ex P3 which depicts the amount of withdrawal of Rs.12 lacs on 28.11.2011. So far as plea of enmity and rivalry or bad rela'ons between the par'es is concerned, no substan'al evidence has been produced on record to prove the same.” 9. It is apparent from the aforesaid observa'ons that evidence produced by the plain'ff was cogent and defendant failed to rebut the same by producing any credible evidence. He did not even make any complaint regarding any alleged fraud or forgery. 10. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well- reasoned concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No merits. Dismissed. Miscellaneous applica'on (s), if any, stand disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 03, 2025 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document