- (1.) A suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, Jora Singh for recovery of Rs.5,60,000/- against the defendant on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 29.11.2003 has been decreed in his favour by the Trial Court vide judgement dated 2.1.2007. In a civil appeal preferred by the defendant Bakhtaur Singh, the judgement and decree of the Trial Court has been affirmed vide impugned judgement dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has been heard.
(3.) Both the courts have returned concurrent findings as regards the due execution of the pronote and receipt dated 29.11.2003 and the same has been held to be duly proved on record. The pronote and receipt in question were duly proved and exhibited on record as Ex.P-1 and P-2 respectively. The attesting witness to such pronote and receipt namely Subhash Kumar had been examined as PW-1, who corroborated in clear terms towards the due execution of such pronote and receipt. The defendant-appellant apart from taking the bald plea of such pronote and receipt being forged and fabricated and having denied the signatures upon led no evidence whatsoever on record to sustain and corroborate the plea of such pronote and receipt to be forged and fabricated. The defendantappellant chose not even to examine a handwriting expert to dispute and deny his signatures on the pronote and receipt (Ex.P-1 & P-2). That apart, the Lower Appellate Court has even taken notice of the fact that a contradictory stand was taken by the defendant-appellant in as much as in the written statement a plea of clear denial had been raised but while appearing in the witness box as DW-1, he had stated that his signatures may have been fraudulently obtained on the pronote and receipt by the plaintiffrespondent.;