LAWS(CHH)-2006-1-17

SACHCHANAND MOOLCHANDANI Vs. MEGHRAJ K RAMNANI

Decided On January 05, 2006
SACHCHANAND MOOLCHANDANI Appellant
V/S
MEGHRAJ K.RAMNANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') as he is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Lower Appellate Court and by which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 36-B/2002 has been dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the above judgment and decree has been partly allowed. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description before the Trial Court.)

(2.) The plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 25,000/-advanced to the defendant against two promissory notes dated 25-5-1992 for Rs. 15.000/- and 26-5-1992 for Rs. 10.000/- and the interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the above amount and other expenses. Thus the plaintiff claimed recovery of a total sum of Rs. 34,000/- and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the repayment of loan advanced.

(3.) The defendant denied the averments of the plaint and submitted that he has not taken any loan from the plaintiff and he does not recognize him and in fact as per prevailing practice whenever he required money in business, he obtained the same through broker Amrit Kumar Jaisinghani who provided the required amount after obtaining his signature over the blank promissory note. In the present case also he had contacted said Amrit Kumar for loan who provided Rs. 25,000/- after obtaining his signatures on two blank promissory notes. He further submitted that he had returned the said amount to Amrit Kumar, however two promissory notes bearing his signatures had not been returned and the plaintiff had filed the above suit by filling in his name and date fraudulently in the above promissory notes. He further objected that the suit was liable for dismissal for non-joinder of necessary party Amrit Kumar as the promissory notes bear the signature of Amrit Kumar.