“A perusal of the record requisitioned from the learned trial Court reveals that the appellant by herself appearing as PWI has reiterated on solemn affirmation her entire plea as contained in the plaint and, surprisingly, is not found to have been confronted by the respondent with a suggestion that the promissory note and receipt in question were not scribed by him and that these two documents do not bear his signatures in place of loanee and that execution of these two documents was not attested by attesting witness Harlabh Singh. At the same time the appellant (PWl) though has been cross examined at a considerable length but the respondent, in his wisdom, has avoided to confront her with a suggestion that loanee's signatures appearing on promissory note and receipt, Exhibit PI and Exhibit P2, respectively, are not the signatures of the respondent or are signatures of someone other than the respondent. During cross examination, PWI Labh Kaur, the appellant has stated that promissory note form and revenue stamps were brought by the respondent and that promissory note and receipt were scribed and executed by the respondent. She has not been confronted with a suggestion to the contrary on behalf of the respondent.”
