RAMESH THADANI Vs. MOHIT GARERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC for grant of leave to defend filed by the defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit stating that the plaintiff had a family relationship with the defendant and on the basis of the said relationship, a friendly loan was given to the defendant. It is stated that a total sum of Rs. 32,25,000/- was advanced on different dates to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant acknowledged receiving the said loan and his liability and agreed to pay it back along with accrued interest at the rate of 1.25% per month. The defendant has issued 11 promissory notes details of which are as follows:-

(3.) THE defendant, on the other hand, in the affidavit in support of his application has stated that the aforenoted promissory notes relied upon by the plaintiff are falsely stated to be signed by the defendant and the same are fabricated. It is further stated that the defendant was born on 25.05.1983 and at the young age of 18 is stated to have put signatures on the alleged aforenoted documents. It is further stated that the defendant and family were running a business in the name and style of M/s. J.M. Industries and the plaintiff showcasing himself to be a financer/broker entered into some business transaction in the said year. It is stated that whatever transactions were held in the alleged period between the plaintiff and the family business concern of the defendant were duly paid back by the defendant and the family concern J.M. Industries. It is stated that the pay back was done through cheques and statement of accounts is stated to have been placed on record. The defendant has already paid the entire amount as per the statement of accounts of the defendant. It is further stated that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is further stated that the plaintiff is a professional money lender and in view of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, the present suit is barred.