16. Though the defendant denies execu�on of the pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2018, in ques�on, in favour of the plain�ff in his wri1en statement, but there is nothing in his evidence on record to reflect that the pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2018, in ques�on, do not bear his signatures. Rather as emanates from the para No. 6, of the preliminary objec�ons, in the wri1en statement, the defendant, namely Sukhdev Singh (since deceased) does not deny his signatures on the pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2018 in ques�on, when he pleads that he had appended signatures on blank papers at the instance of the plain�ff. Then, in his cross-examina�on, Randeep Singh son of Sukhdev Singh (defendant) clearly iden�fies signatures of his father on the pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2018, placed on record as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respec�vely. Then, in order to prove any such act of fraud, forgery and fabrica�on on the part of the plain�ff, the defendant or his LRs have not produced any convincing and reliable evidence on record. There is also nothing on record by the defendant, namely Sukhdev Singh (since deceased) or his LRs to reflect that he ever moved any complaint to any lawful authority against the plain�ff or the a1es�ng witness, namely Sukhmander Singh against forgery and fabrica�on of the pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2018, in ques�on. Thereby, it comes out that the defendant has pleaded wrong facts in his wri1en statement. Every such plea of fraud and forgery, even in a civil suit, is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, like a criminal charge. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the authorita�ve judicial pronouncement by Hon'ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in the case �tled as
