JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that on 15.09.2000, defendant/appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Promissory Note and Receipt in his favour in the presence of marginal witnesses. Defendant had also agreed to pay interest @ 2% p.m. on the loan amount. Despite various requests, defendant had failed to repay the loan amount. Consequentially, plaintiff had filed instant civil suit on 05.03.2003.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla had decreed suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2010, as follows:

“23. As a consequence of my findings on above issues, present suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed for recovery of Rs.1,50,00/- (One lac and fifty thousands) along with interest there-above @ 12% per annum from the date of advance i.e. 15.9.2000 till date of decree, with proportionate Costs. The plaintiff is further entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till final realization. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned. to the record room after due compliance.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed with costs by the learned District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2011. Hence, present second appeal by the defendant.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was the clear case of the appellant that the Pronote on the basis of which the present civil suit had been filed, was a forged document. It is submitted that the appellant in para 1 of the written statement, had categorically stated as follows: -

“1. Para no.1 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The defendant never borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff @ 2% per month on 15.9.2000 and further never promised to return the same along with interest @ 2% per month to the plaintiff on demand. It is further wrong and denied that the defendant executed a pronote and receipt pronote in favour of plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt pronote dated 15.9.2000 is a forged and fictitious document. It is wrong and denied that the defendant received Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from plaintiff in the presence of any witnesses nor put his signatures on the alleged pronote and receipt pronote and canceled the revenue stamps on the alleged pronote and receipt pronote with his signatures. It is further wrong and denied that the defendant handed over any pronote and receipt pronote to plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt pronote dated 15.9.2000 are forged and fictitious document which has been manufactured by plaintiff in connivance with the witnesses of alleged pronote and receipt pronote and 15.9.2000."

6. Clearly therefore, the defendant had taken the plea that the document is forged and fabricated one and he had denied the execution of the same and passing of the consideration.

7. Learned counsel submits that despite the above categorical averment/denial of the appellant in the written statement, the plaintiff had only produced PW1 Rakesh Kumar, PW2 Nachchattar Singh, and PW3 Bhag Singh in his evidence; and plaintiff deliberately chose not to examine any Handwriting Expert in affirmative evidence to prove issue regarding execution of the Pronote and Receipt Pronote dated 15.09.2000. However, the appellant had duly examined Handwriting Expert Navdeep Gupta, who had given categorical Report that the signatures on the Pronote and Receipt Pronote are not original rather are traced. It is submitted that the appellant had therefore, established on record that the Pronote and Receipt Pronote on the basis of which the present civil suit for recovery was filed, a