AMAR NATH Vs. CHHANNU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant is directed against the order dated 16-12-1972 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby ie framed two additional issues and remanded the suit for fresh trial.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4700.00 on the basis of the pronote dated 1-1-1961 for Rs. 4000.00 and had claimed Rs. 700.00 as interest. The suit was resisted by the appellants. It was pleaded that the pronote was without consideration and the same was got executed under duress and threat of criminal prosecution. The facts as pleaded were that Banwari Lal who was the plaintiff's sister's husband and one Phool Chand were carrying on the business of jewellers in Chandni Chowk had entered into a bargain with Ram Sarup defendant No. 1 and Bane Khan for purchase of some gold of the value of Rs. 9000.00 on 30th December, 1960. Ram Sarup defendant No. 1 and Bane Khan sold gold of the value of Rs. 9000.00 to Banwari Lal and Phool Chand and got Rs. 9003.00 from them, after giving the gold. Banwari Lal and Phool Chand came in car No.DLF-1350 which was driven by the employee of defendant No. 2 and this car belonged to defendant No. 2. When Bane Khan and defendant No. I had given gold to Banwari Lal and Phool Chand the police arrived at the spot and took the car to Rajinder Nagar, Police Station. Banwari Lal and Phool Chand lodged a report with the help of the plaintiff and stated therein that the gold, given to them was not according their desire. The police also called defendant No. 2 at the police station. There the defendants were made to sit in the police station throughout the day and under coercion and on threat of third degree method defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 5000.00 to Banwari Lal and Phool Chand in the police station. For the remaining amount a pronote for Rs. 4000.00 was executed in favour of the plaintiff, Thereafter a compromise deed is said to have been executed in the police station which was signed by the plaintiffs Banwari Lal and Phool Chand and defendant No. 1. In that compromise deed, Banwari Lal and Phool Chand admitted having received their money and the return of the pronote to defendant No. I and Bane Khan. It is alleged that this was so recorded on 1-1-1961 at night time. It was further pleaded that even the remaining amount of Rs. 4000.00 out of Rs. 9000.00 was arranged by the relations of defendant No. I and was paid to Banwari Lal and Phool Chand. The gold was returned to defendant No. I after payment of the amount. However, the pronote of Rs.4000.00 was not returned though it was demanded.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: