KARNAIL SINGH Vs. LAKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,920/- on the averments that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,000/- on 2.8.1993 and had agreed to return the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs. 2% per month. The claim was based upon pronote and receipt.

(3.) THE above are the findings of facts arrived at after due appreciation of the evidence. The concurrent view taken by the courts below does not call for any interference in the present Regular Second Appeal. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (dead by LRs.), JT 2001(2) SC 407 : 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 243 (SC) and Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead by LRs.) and others, JT 2001(4) SC 158 : 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 277 (SC). In the present case no material question of law arises. On the contrary it is simply a matter of appreciation of evidence.