LAWS(CHH)-2018-7-130

HEMANT SAHU Vs. MAHESH DEWANGAN

Decided On July 13, 2018
HEMANT SAHU Appellant
V/S
Mahesh Dewangan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant revision has been preferred by the applicant challenging the impugned judgement and decree dated 21.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No.2- B/2011, whereby the learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit- 7B of 2009.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 19,000/- with interest @ 14% per annum from the applicant/defendant on the ground that the applicant has taken loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 07.05.2004 in cash and it was agreed that the loan amount will be returned within a period of three months. This transaction was written on a stamp paper as agreement on the same day. After lapse of time when the applicant/defendant did not return the loan amount, then a legal notice was sent by the respondent/plaintiff on 13.04.2017 which was returned on 26.04.2007 with an endorsement of refusal to accept the same. It was pleaded that on 005.2007, again the plaintiff met with the defendant and requested him for return of the loan amount and on that day the defendant returned Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff before two witnesses and further an agreement was executed that the balance amount of Rs. 19,000/-will be returned within further period of three months. But, the said amount could not be returned by the defendant and therefore, a suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant submitted his written statement and accepted the transaction of the loan. But he pleaded that he had taken loan of only Rs. 10,000/- in the year 2004 with interest @ of 10%. It is wife of the plaintiff obtained blank stamp paper with his signature for security of the loan amount. It was further pleaded that in between the period of 07.05.2004 to 17.02.2007 he had paid the amount of interest @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to wife of the plaintiff. Principal amount was returned in February, 2007 and on 004.2007 in two instalments with the interest of Rs. 2,000/- and thereby he had returned entire loan amount to wife of the plaintiff. He has also pleaded that on demand of the blank signed stamp paper, it has been informed by wife of plaintiff that it was not traceable at that time and as soon as she finds the stamp paper, it would be returned to him. He further pleaded that he had not executed any agreement at any point of time, he never refused to accept the notice and also pleaded that he signed at only one place on the stamp paper, that too on a blank stamp paper. He further specifically pleaded that he had not entered into any agreement on 02.05.2007 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. He denied his signature at the bottom of acknowledgement (Ex.P/1) dated 02.05.2007 on back side of stamp paper.