IMPORTANT POINT
Solitary statement of defendant cannot be accepted to substantiate his version.

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Sukhminder Singh, having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.

2. Respondent-plaintiff Nirbhai Singh filed suit against defendant/appellant for recovery of Rs.5,07,500 alleging that the defendant on 9.9.1999, borrowed Rs.3,50,000 from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @1.5% p.m. and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but defendant did not repay the principal and interest amount. Accordingly, plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.3,50,000 as principal amount and Rs.1,57,500 as interest till filing of the suit i.e. total amount of Rs.5,07,500.

3. Defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. The defendant also denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed any pronote and receipt for the same. The defendant alleged that he had been selling his agricultural produce through M/s Jagroop Singh Lachhman Dass, Commission Agents. The said Commission Agents obtained thumb impressions/signatures of the defendant on blank/printed papers on the pretext of getting him bonus. Defendant filed suit for rendition of accounts against the said Commission Agents. The instant suit has been filed by fabricating the impugned pronote and receipt at the instance of the Commission Agents.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2007, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.3,50,000 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of pronote till filing of the suit and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, himself appeared in the witness-box and also examined Gurinder Pal (PW2) marginal witness of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Both of them have broadly stated according to the plaintiff’s version. The plaintiff also examined handwriting expert R.V. Vashista (PW3), who opined that disputed signatures of defendant on impugned pronote and receipt tallied with his specimen signatures.

7. On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW1 and broadly stated according to his version.

8. Plaintiff’s evidence is cogent and reliable. The plaintiff, besides himself appearing in the witness-box, has examined marginal witness of impugned pronote-cum-receipt, who has supported the plaintiffs version. The plaintiff has• also examined handwriting expert to prove signatures of defendant on impugned pronote-cum-receipt. As against this overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff, there is only solitary bald and self-serving statement of the defendant, which is not sufficient to rebut cogent and credible evidence led by the plaintiff. The defendant impliedly admitted his signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt by alleging that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and printed papers by the aforesaid Commission Agents. However, in the witness-box, the defendant did not come with truth and denied his signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Thus, statement of defendant is not credible.

9. Counsel for the appellant contended that application moved by defendant appellant in the trial court for additional evidence was dismissed. It was submitted that defendant, by way of additional evidence, wanted to place on record copy of a judgment, whereby defendant’s suit filed against the aforesaid Commission Agents was dismissed and also copy of statement made by Jagroop Singh of said Commission Agents in the aforesaid suit, wherein he admitted that plaintiff respondent Nirbhai Singh is his relative. Judgment of the said suit, to which respondent/plaintiff herein was not party, cannot have any bearing against the respon