Godhu Singh v. Naranjan Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Vishal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.3576/- on the basis of pronote dated

25.08.1985 was dismissed in appeal. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2762/- on 25.08.1985 and undertook to pay interest at the rate of 2% p.m. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery. To prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined attesting witnesses of pronote Piara Singh and Major Singh as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. On the other hand, the defendant appeared as DW-1 and examined DW-2 V.B.Bhatnagar, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 17.01.1990, but the defendant's appeal was accepted. The learned first Appellate Court returned a finding that RSA No.906 of 1992 2 the marginal witnesses of the receipt Ex.P2 i.e. Piara Singh (PW-2) and Major Singh (PW-3) are related to the plaintiff and that the thumb impressions are not visible and are not fit for comparison, as per the expert examined by the defendant. The first Appellate Court has also found that the defendant has specifically denied his thumb impressions on the pronote, but no hand writing expert was examined by the plaintiff to prove such thumb impressions. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that pronote was executed by the defendant. Though the plaintiff has produced the attesting witnesses, but such witnesses are found to be interested witnesses. The thumb impressions are not comparable, as per the testimony of DW-2 V.B.Bhatnagar, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert. The hand writing expert has not been examined by the plaintiff to prove such thumb impressions. The learned first Appellate Court has recorded pure findings of fact on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is not pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. The said findings of fact do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that there is any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court or any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed.

23.03.2012 Vimal (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE