RAM AVTAR SUNEET KUMAR Vs. VINAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2006 which had modified the findings of the trial Judge dated 20.04.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2004, the suit filed by the plaintiff Vinay Kumar seeking recovery of Rs.65,000/- along with interest had been decreed against defendant No. 5 only. The impugned judgment had modified the finding; the suit stood decreed against all the five defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff had granted a loan to defendant No. 1 which was a partnership firm carrying on business of wholesale cloth merchants. Defendants No. 2 to 5 were its partners and looking after its day to day affairs. On 27.10.1997, the defendants approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.50,000/- which had been given by him at monthly interest @ 1.25% i.e. 15% per annum. THE amount was payable on demand. A loan deposit receipt was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. This document is dated 27.10.1997 (Ex.PW-1/1). Inspite of legal notice dated 27.01.2000, the defendants have failed to make the payment. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs; they had proved the documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/5. Defendant No. 2 had entered into the witness box on behalf of the defendants; he had examined and proved Ex. DW-1/1. Contention of the defendants was that Ex. PW-1/1 is a forged and fabricated document. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before the trial court, the court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their claim against defendants No. 1 to 4. Defendant No. 5 was proceeded ex- parte; the testimony of defendant No. 1 qua defendant No. 5 was not assailed. Suit was decreed against defendant No. 5 alone.