JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).- CM No.9263-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.9264-C of 2010 2. Deficiency in Court is said to have been made good. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Main Appeal 3. Defendant-Krishanpal Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. 4. Respondent-plaintiff-Roop Singh filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.44,500/-alleging that the defendant on 20.06.2004 borrowed Rs.40000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 1.25% per month i.e 15% per annum and executed pronote-cum-receipt for the same, but the defendant failed to repay the same. Plaintiff claimed Rs.40000/- as principal amount and Rs.4500/- as interest which comes at the rate of 9% per annum only. 5. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations and raised certain preliminary objections. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.40000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 10.06.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 8. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined Budh Ram PW-1 scribe of the pronote-cum-receipt and Bagga Singh PW-2 attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt, besides himself appearing in the witness box as PW-3. All of them have stated according to plaintiff’s version. 9. On the other hand, defendant examined Anil Kumar Gupta DW-1 handwriting expert, who opined that revenue stamp on pronote Ex.P1 has been transplanted from some other document and revenue stamp on receipt ExP2 has been affixed after obtaining the signatures. He has also opined that questioned signatures of defendant on pronote-cum-receipt and standard signatures of defendant are similar in their writing characterstics and have been written by one and the same person. The defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW-2 and broadly stated according to his version. 10. Plaintiff has led cogent and reliable evidence by examining scribe and one attesting witness of the pronote-cumreceipt. The defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW-2 and broadly stated according to his version. 10. Plaintiff has led cogent and reliable evidence by examining scribe and one attesting witness of the pronote-cumreceipt. The plaintiff himself also stepped into the witness box. The plaintiff’s evidence is not rebutted by self-serving solitary testimony of defendant himself. The defendant admitted his signatures on pronote and receipt vide his statement dated 15.01.2008 in crossexamination. Defendant’s expert witness has also stated that the disputed signatures of the defendant on pronote and receipt are his signatures. Plaintiff’s evidence is thus corroborated by defendant’s evidence. Defendant has not explained as to how his signatures appeared on pronote and receipt. The defendant has not alleged any dealing between the parties. The defendant rather took a stand of complete denial. However, it is proved not only from plaintiff’s evidence, but also from defendant’s own evidence that pronote and receipt in question bear signatures of the defendant. This circumstance further corroborates the plaintiff’s case. Opinion of Anil Kumar Gupta DW-1 examined by the defendant that revenue stamp on pronote has been transplanted from some other document cannot be accepted because part of the signatures on the pronote appears on the revenue stamp and part of the signatures of defendant appears on the pronote form. It reasonably rules out transplantation of the signed revenue stamp from some other document. Opinion of expert witness that revenue stamp on the receipt has been affixed later on is insignificant because even receipt without revenue stamp could be admitted in evidence on payment of stamp charges with penalty. Moreover there is no explanation from the defendant as to how his signatures appeared on the receipt even without revenue stamp. There is also no explanation as to how the plaintiff could transplant revenue stamp with signatures of defendant from some other document to the pronote. In other words, it is not explained as to how the plaintiff had any such revenue stamp with defendant’s signatures on any other document. 11. As noticed hereinbefore, plaintiff’s evidence is very cogent and reliable and the same stands strengthened by the evidence of the defendant. There is also presumption of payment of consideration for the pronote in view of Section 118 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. 11. As noticed hereinbefore, plaintiff’s evidence is very cogent and reliable and the same stands strengthened by the evidence of the defendant. There is also presumption of payment of consideration for the pronote in view of Section 118 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is fully supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. In fact, the said finding is the only finding that could be arrived at on the basis of the material on record. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. -----------0.K.B.0------------