IMPORTANT POINT
In a second appeal, evidence on record cannot be re-appreciated, and concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless a substantial question of law is involved.

JUDGMENT :

The present civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment dated 26.4.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No. 18/2022 whereby the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 8/2017 was affirmed.

2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present second appeal are that a suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,100/- was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent with the averments that the defendant-appellant took a loan of Rs.1,05,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent as he had to repay the loan taken from the Kraya-Vikaraya Sahakari Samiti, Budhawalia and the bank. For this purpose, an agreement (Rukka) was executed on 4.6.2014 with a condition that the defendant-appellant shall repay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff-respondent within four days, but since he did not repay the same, the plaintiff-respondent made a complaint before the Police Station, Thaladka. On 10.6.2014, the defendant-appellant was summoned in the Police Station where in the presence of respectable persons of the society, the defendant-appellant accepted that he has taken loan from the plaintiff-respondent but could not repay the same and the same was written on an application dated 10.6.2014, which was submitted by the defendant-appellant to the Incharge of the Police Station concerned after appending his thumb impression. It was also stated that the defendant-appellant shall repay the loan amount within 2-4 days and in case of delay, he would pay interest at the rate of 2%. Despite repeated endeavours, the defendant-appellant failed to repay the loan amount. The agreement (Rukka) was registered on 29.6.2014. Further, since the defendant-appellant was not repaying the loan, therefore, an FIR No.419/2014 was lodged at Police Station, Rawatsar and the investigating agency after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the defendant-appellant. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent preferred the suit seeking recovery of loan amount alongwith interest.

3. Learned Trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned courts below, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings given by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are wrong and contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that no such amount was taken on loan by the appellant and there was no execution of the agreement (Rukka). It is further submitted that the respondent has preferred the suit on the basis of forged and fabricated document/agreement. Further, it is submitted that there was no Panchayat in the Police Station and no such application dated 10.6.2014 was given by the appellant in the police station. The thumb impression of the appellant was taken on blank papers by use of force and with the connivance of the police, the plaintiff-respondent has prepared evidence against the defendant-appellant. It is further submitted that the evidence has not been examined in proper perspective. Thus, it is prayed that present appeal may be allowed and the decisions rendered by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court be quashed and set aside.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the material available on record.

6. Existence of substantial question of law is a sine-qua-non for maintainability of second appeal. At the stage of admission of the present appeal, the question that needs to be determined is that whether a substantial question of law is involved in the present second appea