Second appeal dismissed where both courts below found promissory note execution proved, and forgery unsubstantiated; High Court reiterates that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless substantial question of law arises. Precedents on Section 100 Civil Procedure Code reaffirmed and followed — binding precedent for all subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/3093/2024 of BALDEV SINGH Vs LOVEDEEP SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC011783532024 |
| Date of Registration | 17-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms concurrent factual findings of courts below |
| Type of Law | Civil Law; Civil Procedure, Evidence Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding execution of promissory note and plea of forgery can be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Follows settled law on expert evidence being advisory and on parameters under Section 100 CPC; specific citations not mentioned. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Principles regarding scope of second appeal under Section 100 CPC; settled law on expert evidence and fraud burden |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that concurrent factual findings by trial and first appellate courts are not to be interfered with in second appeal unless a substantial question of law is specifically demonstrated.
- Burden of proving forgery or fraud lies heavily on the party alleging it, and such plea must be established by clear, convincing evidence—not mere suggestions.
- Expert opinion is advisory and subject to court’s independent scrutiny against established facts and probabilities.
- Failure to pursue legal remedies (such as police complaint or civil action) weakens the plea of fabrication or forgery.
- Adverse inference may be drawn if party declines to produce relevant documentary evidence, e.g., bank statements, after offer of production.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts, both of which found the plaintiff’s claim of loan and execution of promissory note and receipt proved.
- The defendant’s defence of forgery was not substantiated by any credible or documentary evidence, nor was any complaint lodged about alleged fabrication.
- Testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, including attesting witnesses and handwriting expert (PW-4), was found consistent and credible; the defendant’s expert witness admitted the natural possibility of signature variation.
- Where fraud or forgery is alleged, the party so alleging bears a heavy evidentiary burden, which was not met in this case.
- The principle was reiterated that an expert opinion is only advisory, must be tested on the touchstone of probabilities, and courts may prefer one expert over another based on the cogency of reasoning.
- Non-production of supporting financial documents, when opportunity given, opens the party to adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
- High Court held that in the absence of perversity or illegality in fact-finding, and with no substantive question of law arising, interference under Section 100 CPC is not justified.
- Appeal dismissed, affirming judgments below.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The promissory note and receipt bear signatures as “Baldev Singh,” whereas the defendant always signs as “B.S. Thapar.”
- Attesting witnesses are related to the plaintiff, hence interested.
- Handwriting expert produced by defendant should have been preferred.
- Plaintiff failed to prove financial capacity to lend ₹8,00,000.
Respondent (Plaintiff):
- Loan was advanced in cash before witnesses; defendant executed promissory note and receipt.
- Defendant failed to substantiate defence of forgery with any credible evidence or legal complaint.
- Plaintiff and witnesses offered to produce corroborating financial records; defendant declined their production.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a cash loan transaction in which the plaintiff claimed the defendant borrowed ₹8,00,000 on 12.04.2019 for domestic needs, in the presence of witnesses, agreeing to repay with interest. The defendant executed a promissory note and receipt. Upon default and service of legal notice dated 28.09.2020, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery. The defendant denied the transaction entirely, alleged the documents were forged/fabricated, and claimed his signatures always appeared in a different style. Both courts below found in favour of the plaintiff, upholding execution of documents and proof of loan.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100 CPC: The High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless such a question is clearly made out.
- Section 114(g), Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Adverse inference may be drawn against a party who withholds evidence within its power—invoked where defendant declined insistence on production of financial records.
- Expert Evidence (Evidence Act): Court reiterated settled law that expert opinion is advisory and must be assessed against the probabilities and reasoning provided.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on Section 100 CPC and evidentiary principles affirmed.