Surya Kant, J. - (1.) (Oral)
(2.) THIS regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant against whom a suit for recovery of Rs.39,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as well as future interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount has been decreed by both the courts. On a perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate court, it is apparent that the suit was based upon a pronote dated 14.2.1996 (Ex.P1), the execution of which has been proved by the respondent. The passing of the consideration at the time of execution of the pronote has also been duly proved by relying upon the oral version of Piara Singh (PW2) and Mukhtiar Singh (PW3). The defence plea that the pronote and receipt were executed by the appellant as collateral security has been disbelieved by both the courts. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to make R.S.A. No.1058 of 2002 - 2 - any dent in the above referred concurrent finding of fact. Since the judgments passed by the courts below are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arises for consideration out of the said finding of fact, no interference is warranted in this regular second appeal. Dismissed.;