The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery and must establish it by clear evidence.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CM No. 12668-C of 2024 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 03 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay of 03 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

RSA No. 3093 of 2024 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff–respondent Lovedeep Singh for recovery of ₹9,44,000/- (₹8,00,000/- as principal and ₹1,44,000/- as interest) was partly decreed by the trial Court on 25.10.2023 for ₹8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 12.04.2019 till realization. The appeal filed by the defendant–appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 13.09.2024.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant borrowed ₹8,00,000/- in cash from him on 12.04.2019 for domestic needs in the presence of witnesses, agreeing to return the same with interest @ 1% per month. The defendant executed a pronote and receipt of even date, duly scribed by Sukhwinder Singh; and attested by Sukhwinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh. On default, and after service of legal notice dated 28.09.2020, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. The defendant denied the transaction altogether, alleging that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents prepared in connivance with the attesting witnesses. He asserted that he never borrowed any money, nor did he know the plaintiff, and that his genuine signatures were always in the form “B.S. Thapar” and not “Baldev Singh,” as appearing on the disputed documents.

5. Both the Courts concurrently held that the loan transaction was duly proved. The pronote and receipt were found duly executed by the defendant, and the financial capacity of the plaintiff was satisfactorily established. The courts relied on the testimony of the plaintiff (PW-1), the scribe Sukhwinder Singh (PW-2), attesting witness Bhupinder Singh (PW-3), and hand-

writing expert Rana Bansal (PW-4).

6. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and handwriting expert Varun Gagneja (DW-2). The trial Court preferred the testimony of PW-4 over DW-2, noting that the latter himself admitted in his report that natural variations may occur over time, undermining the conclusiveness of his opinion.

7. The First Appellate Court, on independent appraisal, affirmed these findings and recorded that the plaintiff’s witnesses consistently proved the loan transaction and execution of the pronote and receipt, while the defendant failed to establish the alleged forgery or animus between him and the scribe. It further noted that the defendant had not taken any legal action or lodged any complaint alleging forgery, nor produced any Panchayat member to prove his plea of humiliation of PW-2 Sukhwinder Singh.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that:

(a) the pronote and receipt bear signatures as “Baldev Singh”, whereas defendant always signs as “B.S. Thapar”;

(b) the witnesses are related to the plaintiff and therefore interested;

(c) the handwriting expert produced by the defendant should have been preferred; and (d) the plaintiff failed to prove financial capacity to lend ₹8,00,000/-.

9. On perusal of entire paper-book, the contentions are found to be devoid of merit. The testimony of PW-2 Sukhwinder Singh, the scribe, remained consistent and credible. The alleged motive of enmity arising from an earlier loan transaction was neither substantiated by any documentary evidence nor supported by any Panchayat witness. Mere suggestions during cross-