GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. VIJAY RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) The respondent had filed suit for recovery, which has been decreed in his favour. Challenging the said judgment and decree dated 11.9.2006, the defendant in the said suit (appellant herein) has preferred this appeal.

(3.) To put up in nutshell, case of the respondent was that the appellant had taken loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for which two promissory notes of Rs.2,50,000/- each were executed by the appellant. For repayment of this loan, he also gave a cheque bearing No. 287760 dated 30.6.1994 for Rs.5,00,000/-, which turned out to be of an account in the name of Mr. Gurmeet Singh when the same was presented for payment. The respondent gave legal notice under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and, thereafter, filed the suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Conditional leave to defend was granted to the appellant directing him to give security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent. It was because of the defence set-up by the appellant herein alleging that he had taken loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- have been paid by him and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only was to be paid. The appellant, thus, paid Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the aforesaid conditional grant of leave to defend and also furnished security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed written statement in which plea taken was that the appellant never signed any promissory notes. He admitted his signatures on cheque bearing No. 287760 dated 30.6.1994, but his stand was that the respondent had brought that cheque and asked the appellant to sign the same and since the appellant had to make payment of Rs.3,00,000/-, he was made to sign the said cheque. In his evidence also the appellant herein took the plea that the appellant was running a committee (chit) and the respondent agreed to finance the said committee on the terms that he would pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellant and at the end of the committee, the appellant would pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- when the 20th draw was to be held. It was in these circumstances the respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and as a security he got two blank pro-notes and blank cheque signed from the appellant. His explanation was that since the appellant was not having any cheque book at that time, the respondent insisted him to issue a cheque from the cheque book of one Mr. Gurmeet Singh, who was also having account in the bank in which the appellant was having his account. The learned trial court has decreed the suit holding that the execution of the pro-notes as well as signing of the cheque in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- had been proved and further that the appellant had not been able to show that he had repaid Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- allegedly received.