Judgment Mrs. Alka Sarin, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgments and decrees dated 29.08.2015 and 11.02.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively. 2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-appellants herein is a firm engaged in purchase and sale of crops at Grain Market, Narwana and filed the present suit for recovery claiming it had advanced a loan of Rs.55,000/- at the interest rate of Rs.2 per hundred per month to the defendant-respondent. It was further alleged that the defendant-respondent executed a pronote and a receipt in this regard and an entry was also made in the account book maintained by the plaintiff-appellants in the ordinary course of business. Thereafter, the defendant-respondent failed to make the payment of the principal amount along-with the interest. A registered notice dated 10.06.2012 was also alleged to have been sent to the defendant-respondent in this regard, however, he failed to make the payment. Hence, the suit. The defendant-respondent filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the pronote and the receipt were not admissible in evidence as the tickets were affixed subsequently. It was further the stand taken that had the defendant-respondent affixed his thumb impression on the pronote and the receipt, the same would have been taken on the tickets and that this fact itself proves that the documents were tampered with. Preliminary objection was also raised regarding limitation. On merits it was denied that any loan was ever taken or any pronote or receipt was executed, as alleged. It was further averred that the defendant-respondent never sold his crop to the plaintiff-appellant after 2009 and that the thumb impressions had been obtained fraudulently. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of principal sum of Rs.55,000/- with pendente lite and future interest from defendant on the grounds taken in the plaint ? OPP B. Whether pronote and receipt are forged documents? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Relief. 4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019. 5. OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Relief. 4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that the pronote and the receipt were duly thumb marked by the defendant-respondent and that the evidence produced on the record clearly proved that the loan had been taken by the defendant-respondent from the plaintiff-appellants firm. It has further been contended that regular books of account have been maintained by the plaintiff-appellants firm. 6. Heard. 7. In the present case both the Courts have concurrently held that the thumb impression of the defendant-respondent was taken on an unstamped pronote and receipt and subsequently the tickets were affixed. This fact has also been admitted by the expert examined by the plaintiff-appellants themselves. It was held that the pronote and the receipt not being properly stamped, the same could not be read in evidence so as to form the basis for the claim. It was further held by both the Courts that the person who is stated to have maintained the register of the plaintiff-appellants firm had not been examined in the witness box to prove that the register was maintained in the ordinary course of business. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has not been able to convince this Court as to how the receipt and the pronote could be considered in evidence in view of the fact that the tickets were affixed subsequently after the thumb impression had already been put on the unstamped papers. There is also no denial to the fact that the expert witness produced by the plaintiff-appellants themselves had admitted this fact. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination in the present case. The present regular second appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.