PREM SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been preferred to impugn the concurrent findings of two courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,41,927/ -. Plaintiff filed a civil suit on the basis of pronote and receipt executed in his favour by the defendant. Defendant resisted the suit contending that pronote and receipt were without any consideration. Same were forged by plaintiff in connivance with witnesses.

(2.) DURING the course of trial, plaintiff examined scribe of the pronote as PW 1 and produced pronote and receipt as Exs. P -1 & P -2. This witness deposed that on 25.01.2006, defendant had borrowed a cash amount of Rs. 3,25,000/ - from the plaintiff. Pronote and receipt were scribed in lieu thereof. The witnesses also appeared as PW 2 & PW 3 and deposed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box. On the basis of evidence led before the trial court, it came to the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to the decree prayed for. Appeal was filed by defendant Prem Singh but met the same fate. Only contention raised before this court is that findings are based on misreading of evidence and, thus, deserve to be set -aside. I find no merit in this plea. After going through the judgments rendered by two courts below, I find no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence. No other question of law has been urged. This second appeal is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.