JUDGMENT 1. - These two second appeals have been filed against similar judgments of the learned District Judge, Churu dated October 21, 1983 by which he has dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgments of the learned Munsiff, Sardarshahar dated March 12, 1993 decreeing the suits for recovery of र 4,507/- (Rs. 3,000/- principal and र 1,507/- interest) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. 2. Two suits for the recovery of र 4,507/-, in each suit, were filed by the plaintiff against the defendant with the averments that on July 01, 1983 the defendant borrowed र 3,000/- from him on interest and executed a prote and receipt in his favour. He did not make payment of a single paise towards any debt despite several demands and a registered not ice dated July 16, 1985. The defendant resisted the suit seriously and denied all the averments of the plaint in his written statement. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed both the suits. The defendant preferred appeals and they were dismissed by the learned District Judge as said above. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned lower Courts have not properly and correctly appreciated the evidence on record, adverse inference was drawn against the plaintiff for not producing hand-writing expert particularly when the case of the defendant from the very beginning was that he used to put signatures and not thumb- impressions on papers. He also contended that it appears to be very unusual that on the same day two loans of र 3,000/- each were taken by the defendant. 4. Substantial question of law arises in either of the appeals. It is well proved from the statement on oath of the plaintiff Mahavir Prasad, PW.1, attesting witness Shyam Sundar, P.W.2 and the scribe Nemi Chand, P.W.3 that the defendant took loans of र 3,000/- each and executed two pronotes (Ex.1 of each suit). The learned lower Courts have rightly observed that it is well proved from the statements of the defendant and his witnesses and the documents.Ex.-A/1 to A/12 that he puts his signature with great difficulty. They have rightly observed that such a person may also put his thumb- impression instead of putting his signature. The learned lower Courts have rightly observed that it is well proved from the statements of the defendant and his witnesses and the documents.Ex.-A/1 to A/12 that he puts his signature with great difficulty. They have rightly observed that such a person may also put his thumb- impression instead of putting his signature. The initial burden which was on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant put his thumb-impression on the protes Ex.1 was fully discharged by him. Thereafter, the defendant could produce finger print expert to prove that the thumb-impressions appearing on the protes are not of his. It was duty of the plaintiff to produce the finger-print expert. It has been observed in Kalwa Devdattam & others V. union of India others, AIR 1964 S.C.880, at page 385 para 11 (end) as follows : "The question of onus probandi is certainly important in the early stages of a case. It may also assume importance where evidence sat all is led on the question in dispute by either side; in such a contigency the party on whom the onus lies to prove a certain fact must fail. Where however evidence has been led by the contesting parties on the question in issue, abstract considerations of onus are out of place; truth or otherwise of the case must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties." 5. Now this Court cannot permit the defendant-appellant to produce the finger print expert to prove that the protes (Ex. 1) do not bear his thumb- impressions. Neither an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code has been moved nor any reason has been advanced for not doing so before the trial Court. Even assuming that the defendant's expert gives report and states on oath that the thumb-impression appearing on the pronotes (Ex. l) are not of the defendant still the Courts have to give their findings on the basis of the entire evidence on record and not solely on the evidence of the finger-print expert ignoring the sworn testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses and other material circumstances appearing in both the suit. In both the suits, the defendant admits to have received the plaintiffs not iceof demand (Ex. 2). In both the suits, the defendant admits to have received the plaintiffs not iceof demand (Ex. 2). He also admits that he did not give their reply satisfactory explanation has been offered by him in any suit as to why he failed to give reply to the notice when he did not borrow the said amounts from the plaintiff and also did not execute protes (Ex. l) in his favour. Moreover, various High Courts of the country have observed about hand-writing expert as follows:- (i) In Bisseswar Poddar v. Nabadwip Chandra Poddar, AIR 1961 Ca1. 300 at page 307-308, it has been observed, "Secondly, Law Reports are replete with case where handwriting experts have been called only to he disbelieved by the Court." (ii) In M/s Banarsi Stores v. President of the Union of India Republic for India, AIR 1953, All. 318, para 17 it has been observed, "...the opinion of this witness was likely to be prejudiced in favour 4 the defendant who had paid him and summoned him to appear as a witness." (iii) In Inder Dutt v. Emperor, AIR, 1931 Lahore 408, it has been observed, ....Of all kinds of evidence admitted in Courts this is most Unsatisfactory. It is so weak and discrepant as would scarcely deserve a place in our system of jurisprudence." (iv) In Saqlain Ahmad v.Emperor, AIR 1935 All. 165, it has been observed, " In view of this infirmity of expert testimony it is settled practice of the Court not to base a finding merely on experts opinion." 6. Both the lower Court have properly and correctly appreciated the evidence on record. They have concurrently held that the defendant borrowed र 3,000/- in the morning and र 3,000/- in the evening of 01.07.1983 and executed promotes on both occasions. These are findings of fact. They are not open to challenge in the second appeals. 7. Accordingly, both the second appeals are summarily dismissed.Second appeal dismissed. *******