IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 128 RSA-2207-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:03.07.2025 Ram Kishan …..Appellant Vs. Balwan .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ram Avtar Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is defendant’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2. Plain%ff Balwan (respondent herein) brought a suit of recovery of ₹1,21,660/- against the defendant (appellant herein) pleading that an amount of ₹79,000/- was borrowed by the said defendant from him on 06.05.2018 for household expenses, vide a wri%ng, which was scribed by Ved Parkash son of Bharat Singh. Defendant had put his signature in Hindi upon the said wri%ng a6er understanding the contents thereof. Amount was repayable along with interest @ 1.5% per month. As defendant failed to make payment, plain%ff brought the suit for recovery of ₹1,21,660/-, which includes ₹79,000/- as principal amount and ₹42,660/- as interest. 3. Defendant denied borrowing any money. He denied his signature on the wri%ng relied by plain%ff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par%es was taken on record. Trial Court decreed the suit on 03.05.2023 and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2207-2025 (O&M) -2- the findings returned by it, were affirmed by the first Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the defendant- appellant on 18.04.2025. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that the en%re case of the plain%ff- respondent is based upon Bahi entry (Ex.P1). There is no witness to the said entry. Ved Parkash, the alleged scribe to the said Bahi entry, examined as PW-1 has given his wri%ng in the Court but that wri%ng differs with the wri%ng on Ex.P1. The expert witness examined by the plain%ff did not compare the handwri%ng of Ex.P1 and as such, the Courts below commiBed error in coming to the conclusion that Ex.P1 was proved. 6. A6er going through the paper-book, this Court does not find merit in the conten%on. 7. As has been found by the Courts below, the wri%ng Ex.P1 was not only proved by the tes%mony of plain%ff Balwan but further proved by the tes%mony of its scribe namely Ved Parkash PW-1. During his cross- examina%on, said Ved Parkash was asked to give sample of hand wri%ng, which was recorded in his tes%mony itself and which on perusal, matched with the wri%ng of Ex.P1. Though, there is a liBle change in the wri%ng but it is quite possible due to lapse of %me, as has been tes%fied by the witness also that his hands have started shaking. Not only this, PW-1 Ved Parkash specifically tes%fied that amount of ₹79,000/- was paid by the plain%ff to the defendant in his presence. 8. Perusal of Ex.P-1 reveals that it is duly signed by defendant Ram Kishan on the revenue stamp. The said signature are proved not only by the statement of the plain%ff but also by the handwri%ng expert namely PW-2 Renu Sheoran. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that disputed NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2207-2025 (O&M) -3- signature and the sample signature were not taken in the presence of PW-2 Renu Sheoran nor she had examined the handwri%ng. 10. There is no merit in the conten%on. It is not the case of the plain%ff that bahi wri%ng Ex.P1 was wriBen by the defendant. The defendant had put the signature a6er Ex.P1 was scribed by Ved Parkash and therefore, the expert had examined the disputed signature of the defendant Ram Kishan with his sample signature and the same were found to be of the same person. There is no rebuBal to the aforesaid evidence produced by the plain%ff, except the bald statement made by the defendant. 11. In view of the abovesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia%on of evidence on record. 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 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document