The appellate court improperly reversed a trial decision regarding the authenticity of signatures on a pronote without addressing the trial court's valid evidence comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997 whereby the appeal filed by the present-respondent was allowed after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1992 and the suit was decreed for Rs.3,000/- along with interest of Rs.1,035/- total Rs.4035/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs.4,035/- against the defendant-appellant contending therein that the defendant had taken a loan on 22.03.1984 for the purchase of land. A pronote Exhibit-1 and receipt Exhibit-2 were executed on the same date. The agreed rate of interest was Rs.1.50 per Rs.100/- per month. However, neither the principal amount nor the interest was paid as per the terms of the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed the principal amount of Rs.3,000/- and interest of Rs.1,035/-, totaling Rs.4,035/-.

3. The defendant, after appearing in the suit, filed an application seeking leave to defend, which was granted. Thereafter, the defendant filed a reply denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that no loan amount was taken by him. It was further asserted that the pronote and the receipt did not bear his signatures. Since the plaintiff was having enmity with the defendant, therefore a forged document was prepared either by putting the signature by the plaintiff himself or by any other person and therefore, it was prayed by him that the suit be rejected.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

5. The Trial Court decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff, and under issue No.2, based on the finding on Issue No.1, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.1992. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff-respondent preferred first appeal which came to be allowed by reversing the finding on issue No.1 by the first appellate Court and the suit was decreed for Rs.4035/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.

6. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997, the defendant-appellant preferred this second appeal in which the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 14.07.1997:-

“(i) WHETHER first appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court without meeting the cogent and convincing reasons given by the learned trial court ?

(ii) WHETHER the learned trial court was legally justified to compare the disputed signatures on the pro-note Ex.1 and receipt Ex.2 with admitted signatures of the defendant-appellant on his written statement, on his Vakalatnama and on his deposition within the meaning of Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, if so its effect?

(iii) WHETHER the finding recorded by the learned trial court about the forged signatures of the defendant-appellant on the pro-note Ex.1 and receipt Ex.2 after comparing the same with his admitted signatures on his written statement, on his Vakalatnama and on his deposition, which has not been reversed by the learned first appellate court shall be deemed to be affirmed, if so its effect?

(iv) WHETHER if the defendant-appellant has denied his signatures on the pro-note Ex.1 and receipt Ex.2, then it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-respondent to have examined an expert witness to prove the same and in event of his failure to do so, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him ?”

7. The present appeal is pending since 1997. Counsel for the appellant made his submissions, however no o