JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Plaintiff-Gian Chand had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 16.11.2001. 2. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 16.11.2001 and had executed pronote and receipt in his favour. However, the defendant had failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. 3. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the fact that he had ever borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The execution of the pronote and receipt in question was also denied by the defendant. It was averred that the plaintiff was a commission agent and the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated document. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 200000/- and agree to pay intrest at the rate of 2 % per month on 16.11.2001 and executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 12 ½ % per annum ? OPP 3. Whether consideration passes hands at the time of execution of pronote and receipt ? OPD. 4. Whether alleged pronote and receipt is forged and fabricated documents ? OPD. 5. Whether there are material additions and altercations in the pronote and receipt ? OPD. 6. Relief.” 5. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. 7. The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. The said pronote and receipt are dated 16.11.2001. Plaintiff, in order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, examined Hem Raj, attesting witness as P.W.1 and scribe Rajinder Kumar as P.W.2 and himself appeared in the witness box as P.W.3. All the said witnesses deposed qua the due execution of the pronote and receipt by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, in order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, examined Hem Raj, attesting witness as P.W.1 and scribe Rajinder Kumar as P.W.2 and himself appeared in the witness box as P.W.3. All the said witnesses deposed qua the due execution of the pronote and receipt by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also examined P.W.4 Navdeep Gupta, handwriting and finger prints expert, who proved his report Ex.P-3. The said witness deposed that only thumb impression Q4 was clear for comparison and the other thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt were not clear and hence could not be compared. The said itness opined that the thumb impressions mark as ‘Q4’ were identical and matched with the standard thumb impressions of defendant S1 and S2. Defendant, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the said evidence. Mere denial of the execution of pronote and receipt by the defendant was not sufficient. Defendant had failed to establish that the pronote and receipt were a result of forgery and fraud. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the defendant. 8. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. 9. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------