30.10. 24(O&M) .2025 .10.2025 v. Baldev Singh gh Lovedeep Singh CORAM: HON’BL PTA N’BLE
Case Details
RSA No. 3093 of 3 of 2024 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3093 of 2024(O Reserved on: 29.10.202 Pronounced on: 30.10. 24(O&M) .2025 .10.2025 Versus Baldev Singh gh Lovedeep Singh CORAM: HON’BL PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate Argued by:- Mr. For the appellant. For t *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. CM No. 12668-C C of 2024 …Appellan llant …Responden dent This is an application under Secti This ection 5 of Limitation Act seekin eking condonation of d of delay of 03 days in filing the appe appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the a For wed. he application, the same is allowed Delay of 03 days ays in filing the appeal stands condo ondoned. RSA No. 3093 of 3 of 2024 This Regular Second Appeal is d This is directed against the concurren rrent findings recorde rded by both the Courts below, ow, whereby the suit filed by th the
Legal Reasoning
plaintiff–respond ondent Lovedeep Singh for recover overy of ₹9,44,000/- (₹8,00,000/- as principal and ₹1, ₹1,44,000/- as interest) was partl rt on partly decreed by the trial Court on 25.10.2023 for or ₹8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% 6% per annum from 12.04.2019 ti 9 till realization. The he appeal filed by the defendant y the ant–appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Co te Court on 13.09.2024. 2. For convenience, parties are referr For ferred to as per their status befor efore the trial Court. JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.30 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 1 of 4 RSA No. 3093 of 3 of 2024 3. The case of the plaintiff was t The wed as that the defendant borrowed ₹8,00,000/- in ca in cash from him on 12.04.2019 for ence for domestic needs in the presence of witnesses, agr agreeing to return the same with with interest @ 1% per month. Th . The defendant execu xecuted a pronote and receipt o ipt of even date, duly scribed d by Sukhwinder Sing Singh; and attested by Sukhwinder . On der Singh and Bhupinder Singh. On default, and afte after service of legal notice dated 2 ed 28.09.2020, the plaintiff filed th d the present suit. 4. The defendant denied the transact The t the saction altogether, alleging that the pronote and re receipt were forged and fabri abricated documents prepared in d in connivance with ith the attesting witnesses. He as wed e asserted that he never borrowed any money, nor nor did he know the plaintiff, and t nd that his genuine signatures wer were always in the for e form “B.S. Thapar” and not “Bald n the Baldev Singh,” as appearing on the disputed docume uments. 5. Both the Courts concurrently held Both held that the loan transaction wa was duly proved. Th . The pronote and receipt were ere found duly executed by the the defendant, and and the financial capacity of t of the plaintiff was satisfactoril torily established. The The courts relied on the testimony o cribe ny of the plaintiff (PW-1), the scribe Sukhwinder Sing Singh (PW-2), attesting witness Bhu Bhupinder Singh (PW-3), and han and- writing expert Ra rt Rana Bansal (PW-4). 6. The defendant examined himself a The elf as DW-1 and handwriting exper xpert Varun Gagneja ( ja (DW-2). The trial Court preferr ferred the testimony of PW-4 ove over DW-2, noting th g that the latter himself admitt mitted in his report that natura tural variations may oc ay occur over time, undermining the on. the conclusiveness of his opinion. 7. The First Appellate Court, on indepe The dependent appraisal, affirmed thes these findings and reco recorded that the plaintiff’s witnes loan tnesses consistently proved the loan transaction and e nd execution of the pronote and re ailed d receipt, while the defendant failed to establish the a he alleged forgery or animus betwe tween him and the scribe. It furthe rther noted that the de e defendant had not taken any lega legal action or lodged any complain laint JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.30 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 2 of 4 RSA No. 3093 of 3 of 2024 alleging forgery, ery, nor produced any Panchayat ayat member to prove his plea o a of humiliation of PW f PW-2 Sukhwinder Singh. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant ar Lear nt argued that: (a) the pro pronote and receipt bear signatu natures as “Baldev Singh”, wherea ereas defendant ant always signs as “B.S. Thapar”; (b) the wit witnesses are related to the plainti intiff and therefore interested; (c) the han handwriting expert produced by t been by the defendant should have been preferred; red; and (d) the plai plaintiff failed to prove financial ca l capacity to lend ₹8,00,000/-. 9. On perusal of entire paper-book, On p to be k, the contentions are found to be devoid of merit. rit. The testimony of PW-2 Sukhwin ined hwinder Singh, the scribe, remained consistent and c nd credible. The alleged motive of e of enmity arising from an earlie arlier loan transaction tion was neither substantiated by by any documentary evidence no nor supported by by any Panchayat witness. Me ross- Mere suggestions during cross examination cann cannot substitute proof. 10. As to the signatures, it stands a As t ds admitted that during trial, the the defendant himse imself gave specimen signatures in es in both forms — “Baldev Singh ingh” and “B.S. Thapar apar.” The expert PW-4 compared t h the ed the disputed signatures with the specimen “Balde aldev Singh” signatures made before efore the Court and opined that the they matched. Hence ence, the plea that the expert’s ert’s comparison was defective i ve is unsustainable. 11. The handwriting expert produce The duced by the defendant (DW- -2) admitted that va t variation in handwriting occurs n nion, rs naturally over time. His opinion being equivocal a cal and unsupported by convincing rded. ing reasoning, was rightly discarded The trial Court’s rt’s preference for PW-4’s testimon mony was based on cogent ground unds consistent with s ith settled law that expert opinion st be ion is merely advisory and must be tested on the tou touchstone of probability. JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.30 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 3 of 4 RSA No. 3093 of 3 of 2024 12. Regarding financial capacity, the Co Rega e Courts below recorded concurren rrent findings that the the plaintiff and his family own agr d the agricultural land and explained the sources of fund funds—withdrawal from CC limit limit and proceeds of agricultura ltural produce. Notabl tably, both PW-1 and PW-3 offere ffered to produce supporting ban bank statements and and J-Forms, but the defendan dant declined to insist on thei their production. The The adverse inference under Sectio ence ction 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 therefo refore, operates against the defend fendant. 13. Still further, the absence of any Still any reply to the legal notice o e or complaint to the the police further weakens the d e defendant’s plea of forgery. It i . It is well-settled that that where a party claims fraud ud or fabrication, the burden lie lies heavily on him to m to establish it by clear and convin ence nvincing evidence. No such evidence has been led in th in this case. 14. Consequently, this Court finds no Cons s no perversity or illegality in the the concurrent findin indings recorded by the Courts belo note below. The execution of the pronote and receipt stan stands proved; the plea of forge orgery is unsubstantiated; and the the plaintiff’s financi ancial capacity stands established. es no ed. The appeal, therefore, raises no substantial quest uestion of law under Section 100 CP 0 CPC. 15. The appeal therefore fails and is The is dismissed. The judgments and and decrees of the C he Courts below are affirmed. Pen tand Pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 30.10.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.30 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 4 of 4