JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt was decreed. 2. As per the facts pleaded in the plaint, appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lac from the plaintiff-respondent on 06.05.2002 and ­executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the respondent, which was duly signed by the appellant in the presence of witnesses. The appellant also agreed to pay interest on the borrowed amount at the “rate of 18% per annum and further agreed to return the loan amount within 6 months and on demand made by the respondent the appellant failed to return the loan amount. Hence suit for recovery was filed. 3. Upon notice, the suit was contested by the appellant and it was submitted that the alleged pronote and receipt were result of fraud and misrepresentation. No transaction ever took place between the parties no consideration of the alleged amount of the pronote was ever passed to the appellant. Appellant categorically denied the execution of pronote and’ receipt in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in the presence of witnesses. It was further alleged that in fact the respondent along with his brother used to run a shop in Samana under the name and style of P. K. Traders and the appellant who is an agriculturist used to sell his produce on the said shop. During that transaction, the said firm might have obtained signatures of the defendant on blank pronote and receipt as security. The appellant discontinued his dealings with the above said firm in the year 1993 and after clearing the settlement of complete accounts No Due Certificate was issued by the firm to him. The plaintiff in connivance with the witnesses had forged and fabricated the pronote and receipt. Since no amount was borrowed, therefore, no question arises for agreeing to pay any interest on the said amount. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. On appreciation of evidence and hearing counsel for the parties the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that execution of the pronote and receipt in question stands duly proved and mere denial of the defendant-appellant was insufficient to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. On appreciation of evidence and hearing counsel for the parties the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that execution of the pronote and receipt in question stands duly proved and mere denial of the defendant-appellant was insufficient to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent. There is no evidence on record to support the stand taken by the appellant in his defence. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find fault ­with the findings of the courts below. 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant argued that rate of interest i.e.12.5% per annum by way of future interest on the decretal amount was on the higher side and was not permissible in law. Even the aforesaid argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, I find that no such grievance was raised by the appellant with regard to the rate of interest. Moreover, it is the pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent that appellant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the loan amount and the courts below have awarded interest @ 12.5% only. Once the finding on the pronote and receipt is affirmed, no fault can be found on the question of interest which is admittedly lesser than the agreed rate of interest. 6. No other point was argued. 7. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 8. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. 9. Dismissed. ------------------