JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral):- The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff with some modification in the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gidderbaha vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. 3. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 29.07.2003 on the plea that present appellant-defendant had taken a loan of Rs.78,500/- from the plaintiff at the interest rate of 2% per mensum and executed the pronote and receipt in his favour and that appellant-defendant had signed the pronote and receipt in token of its correctness and appellant also wrote in his hands “78500 Rupay Vasool Paye” and however, Rs.30,000/- were returned by the appellant-defendant on account of interest vide receipt dated 29.05.2005 and that hence, respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover the remaining amount from present appellant-defendant alongwith interest after deducting Rs.30,000/-. Hence, respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit to recover Rs.1,05,000/- i.e. principal amount of Rs.78,500/- and interest of Rs.26,500/-. 4. On notice being issued, appellant-defendant has denied having taken any loan from the respondent-plaintiff. He has also denied having executed pronote and receipt. Rather plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff is a Goldsmith and runs a jewellery shop and that on 28.02.2002 appellant-defendant got prepared jewellery for marriage of his daughter for an amount of Rs.97,662/- and that as security respondent-plaintiff had obtained his signatures on one agreement and one pronote and receipt. Hence, plea has been taken that the said documents signed by him is only a guarantee against the jewellery. He has also taken the plea that he made payment of Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff on 06.03.2003 and Rs.30,000/- on 29.05.2005. 5. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court did not believe the version of present appellant-defendant and hence, suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- alongwith cost and interest. He has also taken the plea that he made payment of Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff on 06.03.2003 and Rs.30,000/- on 29.05.2005. 5. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court did not believe the version of present appellant-defendant and hence, suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- alongwith cost and interest. On appeal filed by present appellant-defendant, the said judgment and decree was modified by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib to the extent that the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.78,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the pre suit period and at the rate of 6% per annum for pendente lite and future period till actual payment. It is also clarified that Rs.30,000/- already paid by the present appellant-defendant shall be deducted. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that the pronote and receipt was executed only as a security and no loan was taken by him and that, in fact, he had returned Rs.50,000/- more out of the said amount. However, no writing of the alleged payment has been produced by appellant-defendant whereas execution of pronote and receipt has been duly proved. The pronote and receipt has also been entered in the register of Deed Writer. There is writing in the hands of present appellant-defendant that he executed the pronote and receipt after receiving Rs.78,500/-. Moreover, the rate of 12 per cent per annum cannot be said to be excessive. Future and pendente lite interest has been reduced to only 6 per cent per annum by learned first appellate Court. 7. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. --------------