JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No.147/1 of 2014, titled as P.P.S. Chhatwal Versus Satyapal Kashyap, decided on 30.05.2017, vide which learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization, as also the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.33-S/13 of 2017, titled as Satya Pal Kashyap Versus P.P.S. Chhatwal, decided on 04.07.2018, whereby learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, concurred with the findings returned by learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization, on the ground that plaintiff and defendant were having good relations with each other and defendant, on account of some financial burden upon him due to construction work undertaken by him, had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance. Plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.65,000/- on different dates to defendant between 10.02.2011 to 10.09.2011. Defendant executed a receipt/undertaking qua borrowing of the said amount from plaintiff on 10.09.2011. On 14.04.2011, defendant issued a cheque bearing No.092833 in favour of plaintiff to discharged part liability to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, but the same was dishonoured. Plaintiff, thereafter, initiated proceedings against defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the appropriate Court and therein the matter was compromised between the parties and defendant paid Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff. However, balance amount of Rs.50,000/- remained unpaid and despite various requests made by plaintiff, defendant failed to make good the said payment. 3. The suit was resisted by defendant inter alia on the plea that defendant had never borrowed Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff nor any receipt was executed by him, as alleged by plaintiff on 10.09.2011. 4. By way of replication, plaintiff reiterated his case. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. The suit was resisted by defendant inter alia on the plea that defendant had never borrowed Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff nor any receipt was executed by him, as alleged by plaintiff on 10.09.2011. 4. By way of replication, plaintiff reiterated his case. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether suit is time barred, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief". 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : No. Issue No.6 : No. Relief : The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs as per operative part of the judgment". 7. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization after holding that it stood proved from the record that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable from the plaintiff to defendant. The contention of defendant that Ext.PW1/B was not the original receipt stood answered in negative by learned trial Court by holding that receipt Ext.PW1/B was original document and the objection raised by defendant against the same was bad, especially as defendant in the witness box had admitted in his cross-examination that signatures on said receipt were his. While returning said findings, learned trial Court relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ajudya Lal Versus Sandhya Devi and others, (2006) 2 LatestHLJ 943, in which case, this Court has held that there could not be evidence stronger than admission by the parties in civil case. 8. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed an appeal. 9. This appeal was dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018. 8. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed an appeal. 9. This appeal was dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018. While dismissing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff was seeking recovery of Rs.50,000/- alongwith pendente lite interest and Ext.PW1/B was the receipt/undertaking dated 10.09.2011, in which it was mentioned that defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff, out of which Rs.15,000/- was paid by way of a cheque. Learned Appellate Court also took notice of the fact that defendant in his statement as DW-1 had clearly admitted his signatures on the said exhibit. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that it was apparent that defendant was yet to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court also held that plaintiff as PW-1, had tendered in evidence his sole affidavit Ext.PW1/A and the statement of plaintiff was strictly inconsonance with his pleadings and the factum of borrowing of the money by defendant from plaintiff also stood proved on the basis of receipt dated 10.09.2011. Learned Appellate Court further held that defence of defendant was of denial simplicitor and though he had alleged that receipt/undertaking Ext.PW1/B was a forged document, however, no evidence was led by defendant to substantiate said contention. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that the view taken by learned trial Court was a reasonable view and the same did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, so passed by both the learned Courts below, defendant has filed the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that Ext.PW1/B was a false and fabricated document and a scanned copy of the same was exhibited and suit could have been decreed by relying upon the said exhibit. No other point was urged. 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has argued that there was no perversity with the findings returned by learned Courts below because the findings so returned by learned Courts below were duly borne out from the record. No other point was urged. 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has argued that there was no perversity with the findings returned by learned Courts below because the findings so returned by learned Courts below were duly borne out from the record. He has further argued that as the allegation of defendant was that Ext.PW1/B was a forge document, onus was upon him to prove said fact, which he was not able to prove. Accordingly, he urged that as the appeal sans merit, the same be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 14. The suit filed by plaintiff was for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest. The claim was denied by defendant on the ground that he had not taken any money from plaintiff. There are concurrent findings of fact returned by both the learned Courts below in favour of plaintiff and against defendant that defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff, out of which Rs.50,000/- was still unpaid as on the date when the suit was filed. Whether Ext.PW1/B was a forged and fabricated document, both the learned Courts below have held in favour of plaintiff that same was neither a forged document nor a fabricated document. 15. The contention of defendant that Ext.PW1/B was not the original document, has also been dis-believed by both the learned Courts below in view of the fact that his signatures upon the same were not disputed even by defendant when he entered the witness box. 16. All these findings returned with regard to the veracity of Ext.PW1/B by both the learned Courts below are findings of facts. The scope of interference by the High Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only if the Court finds that there is substantial question of law involved in the appeal. In my considered view, in the facts of the present case, there is no question of law involved in this appeal, leave aside any substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Courts below are perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Courts below are perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. 17. In this view of the matter, as no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the same being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No.147/1 of 2014, titled as P.P.S. Chhatwal Versus Satyapal Kashyap, decided on 30.05.2017, vide which learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization, as also the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.33-S/13 of 2017, titled as Satya Pal Kashyap Versus P.P.S. Chhatwal, decided on 04.07.2018, whereby learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, concurred with the findings returned by learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization, on the ground that plaintiff and defendant were having good relations with each other and defendant, on account of some financial burden upon him due to construction work undertaken by him, had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance. Plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.65,000/- on different dates to defendant between 10.02.2011 to 10.09.2011. Defendant executed a receipt/undertaking qua borrowing of the said amount from plaintiff on 10.09.2011. On 14.04.2011, defendant issued a cheque bearing No.092833 in favour of plaintiff to discharged part liability to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, but the same was dishonoured. Plaintiff, thereafter, initiated proceedings against defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the appropriate Court and therein the matter was compromised between the parties and defendant paid Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff. On 14.04.2011, defendant issued a cheque bearing No.092833 in favour of plaintiff to discharged part liability to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, but the same was dishonoured. Plaintiff, thereafter, initiated proceedings against defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the appropriate Court and therein the matter was compromised between the parties and defendant paid Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff. However, balance amount of Rs.50,000/- remained unpaid and despite various requests made by plaintiff, defendant failed to make good the said payment. 3. The suit was resisted by defendant inter alia on the plea that defendant had never borrowed Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff nor any receipt was executed by him, as alleged by plaintiff on 10.09.2011. 4. By way of replication, plaintiff reiterated his case. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether suit is time barred, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief". 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : No. Issue No.6 : No. Relief : The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs as per operative part of the judgment". 7. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization after holding that it stood proved from the record that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable from the plaintiff to defendant. 7. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.09.2011 till realization after holding that it stood proved from the record that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable from the plaintiff to defendant. The contention of defendant that Ext.PW1/B was not the original receipt stood answered in negative by learned trial Court by holding that receipt Ext.PW1/B was original document and the objection raised by defendant against the same was bad, especially as defendant in the witness box had admitted in his cross-examination that signatures on said receipt were his. While returning said findings, learned trial Court relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ajudya Lal Versus Sandhya Devi and others, (2006) 2 LatestHLJ 943, in which case, this Court has held that there could not be evidence stronger than admission by the parties in civil case. 8. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed an appeal. 9. This appeal was dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018. While dismissing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff was seeking recovery of Rs.50,000/- alongwith pendente lite interest and Ext.PW1/B was the receipt/undertaking dated 10.09.2011, in which it was mentioned that defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff, out of which Rs.15,000/- was paid by way of a cheque. Learned Appellate Court also took notice of the fact that defendant in his statement as DW-1 had clearly admitted his signatures on the said exhibit. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that it was apparent that defendant was yet to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court also held that plaintiff as PW-1, had tendered in evidence his sole affidavit Ext.PW1/A and the statement of plaintiff was strictly inconsonance with his pleadings and the factum of borrowing of the money by defendant from plaintiff also stood proved on the basis of receipt dated 10.09.2011. Learned Appellate Court further held that defence of defendant was of denial simplicitor and though he had alleged that receipt/undertaking Ext.PW1/B was a forged document, however, no evidence was led by defendant to substantiate said contention. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that the view taken by learned trial Court was a reasonable view and the same did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 10. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that the view taken by learned trial Court was a reasonable view and the same did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, so passed by both the learned Courts below, defendant has filed the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that Ext.PW1/B was a false and fabricated document and a scanned copy of the same was exhibited and suit could have been decreed by relying upon the said exhibit. No other point was urged. 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has argued that there was no perversity with the findings returned by learned Courts below because the findings so returned by learned Courts below were duly borne out from the record. He has further argued that as the allegation of defendant was that Ext.PW1/B was a forge document, onus was upon him to prove said fact, which he was not able to prove. Accordingly, he urged that as the appeal sans merit, the same be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 14. The suit filed by plaintiff was for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest. The claim was denied by defendant on the ground that he had not taken any money from plaintiff. There are concurrent findings of fact returned by both the learned Courts below in favour of plaintiff and against defendant that defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff, out of which Rs.50,000/- was still unpaid as on the date when the suit was filed. Whether Ext.PW1/B was a forged and fabricated document, both the learned Courts below have held in favour of plaintiff that same was neither a forged document nor a fabricated document. 15. The contention of defendant that Ext.PW1/B was not the original document, has also been dis-believed by both the learned Courts below in view of the fact that his signatures upon the same were not disputed even by defendant when he entered the witness box. 16. 15. The contention of defendant that Ext.PW1/B was not the original document, has also been dis-believed by both the learned Courts below in view of the fact that his signatures upon the same were not disputed even by defendant when he entered the witness box. 16. All these findings returned with regard to the veracity of Ext.PW1/B by both the learned Courts below are findings of facts. The scope of interference by the High Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only if the Court finds that there is substantial question of law involved in the appeal. In my considered view, in the facts of the present case, there is no question of law involved in this appeal, leave aside any substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Courts below are perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. 17. In this view of the matter, as no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the same being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.