RAMILABEN JASHUBHAI PATEL Vs. RASIKLAL CHUNILAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Suit of the original plaintiffrespondent herein was based on the Promissory Note. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had "miserably failed" to prove the execution of the Promissory Note. The first appellate court took a view to conclude that the plaintiff had proved the Promissory Note "to the hilt". The moot is issue is therefore whether the execution of the suit Promissory Note (Exh.32) was proved on evidence.

(2.) Following order was passed in the present proceedings on 10.09.2013, formulating the substantial questions of law as under:

(3.) The facts leading to the present Second Appeal and giving rise to the substantial questions of law above may be usefully stated. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.219 of 1981 before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Dabhoi praying for recovery of Rs.19,999/- with 15% interest. The case of the plaintiff was that the deceased Jasbhai Muljibhai borrowed from him for his household expenses and agricultural expenses Rs.15,235/- on 21.05.1978 and in that regard said Jasbhai executed a Promissory Note. It was the case that despite repeated demands, he did not pay the amount and after his death, his heirs-the defendants were requested to pay the amount, but they also did not pay. It was alleged that by conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff was likely to be deprived of his legitimate claim in respect of the amount given. The Suit was instituted praying to recover Rs.19,999/- with interest. In the suit proceedings the plaintiff also filed an application for attachment of the properties of the defendant before judgment, which is Exhibit 5 on record.