The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific pleading and filing a complaint in cases of fraud and forgery, and highlights the imperfect nature of handwriting analysis.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal arises against the judgments and decree of the Courts below wherein the suit for recovery of Rs.1,69,400/- (Rs.1,10,000/- as principal amount and Rs.59,400/- as interest) has been decreed against the defendant.

2. The suit for recovery was filed by Sukhdev Singh-respondent on the allegations that on 1.5.2005, the defendant had borrowed a sum ofRs.1,10,000/-in the presence of witness and agreed to pay the sum along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month to the plaintiff. It was alleged that at the time of borrowing the said amount pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff was executed in the presence of the witness and the defendant put his signatures in English language on the pronote and receipt after affixing the revenue stamp on the same. The contents of the pronote and receipt were read over and explained to the defendant in Punjabi language in the presence of witness and the pronote and receipt were scribed by the defendant himself. The said amount had not been repaid and thus, the suit came to be filed on 30.4.2008. In the written statement filed by the defendant/appellant, it was alleged that the pronote and receipt were false, forged and fabricated and without consideration and the defendant never took any amount nor executed the pronote and receipt. The signatures on the pronote and receipt were also denied and it was alleged that the same were of some one else. On the basis of the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether defendant executed a pronote and receipt for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-in favour of the plaintiff on 1.5.2005?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan amount along with interest if, so at what rate? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form? OPP

6. Whether pronote and receipt are false, forged and fabricated documents?

7. Relief.”

3. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the plaintiff as PW-1 and PW-2 Janak Singh witness to the receipt and the evidence of the defendant as DW-1 and evidence of Ms. Rana Bansal, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, Patiala as DW-2 noticed that though a plea of false and forged pronote had been taken but the evidence regarding Janak Singh and his wife being a partner was beyond pleadings. The trial Court came to the conclusion that defendant had not made any complaint to any authority that the plaintiff had forged his signatures and there was sufficient evidence that the loan had been obtained and held that plaintiff was entitled to recover the loan amount with interest. The interest was reduced to 12% per annum instead of claim of 1.5% per month and the future interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree. Regarding the evidence of the Handwriting Expert the same was discarded on account of the fact that the standard signatures of the defendant which were compared were of 2008 whereas the disputed signatures were of 2005 and variation can occur with the lapse of time. The fact that the Handwriting Expert had said that the disputed signatures are result of copied forgery was also noticed and held that forgeror must have some model signatures before him for the purpose of copying and it was not the case of the defendant in pleading that plaintiff was having the signature of the defendant, and from where he had copied on the pronote and receipt. It was also noticed that experts usually gave opinion in favour of their pay masters.

4. The appeal filed by the defendant before the Lower Appellate Court met the fate of dismissal on the ground that there is a presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (26 of 1881) in favour of the plaintiff that he is a holder in due course unles