DESH RAJ Vs. HARI RAMM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.9.1989 passed by Smt. Bimla Makin, Sub-Judge

(2.) From the impugned judgment it appears that the learned Judge has mis-read, plaint. The plaintiff in para 6 of the plaint has stated as under :

(3.) The learned trial Court has stated in Paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment that it is nowhere stated in the plaint that the loan was repayable at Delhi. Again in Paragraph 6 of the judgment it has been stated that the plaintiff has not mentioned the place where he delivered the cheque to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. The learned trial Court has given its finding on such presumption that such facts do not find place in the plaint. However, in my opinion, the finding of the trial Court is contrary to the pleadings in the plaint.