D J BELEKAR Vs. RAMBHAU BHAGWANJI GORALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision application the revision applicant seeks to challenge the decree passed against him by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 20th Feb., 1975 in Civil Suit No. 1357 of 1972.

(2.) The plaintiff, present opponent, filed the suit for recovering Rs. 1,500/ advanced by him to the revision applicant on 11-7-1969 under the receipt Ex. 38. According to the opponent, he was on friendly terms with the revision applicant as both of them were working in the office of the Zilla Parishad at Nagpur. It was his case that the applicant who was in need of money obtained Rs. 1,500/- on 11-7-1969 promising to pay back the amount at an early date but failed to do so. The revision applicant admitted in his written statement that he took Rs. 1,500/- from the opponent on 11-7-1969 and passed a receipt to that effect. According to him, 'however, he took Rupees 1,500/- each from 10 different persons inchiding the opponent and deposited these amounts in their names in the Abhaya Griha Nirman Co-operative Society, Ltd., as the Society was in need of money to honour an agreement for purchase of a field. He also contended that the amount deposited by the opponent was repaid by the Society on 24-11-1969, in pursuance to his letter dated 5-11-1969 addressed to the Honorary Secretary of the said Society. The revision applicant, however, subsequently amended his written statement and contended that he received the amount on 29-4-1967 or thereabout and not on 11-7-1969 and that the receipt dated 11-7-1969 was passed by him in favour of the opponent at the instance of the latter after about two years. He maintained that no transaction took place between him and the opponent on 11-7-1969.

(3.) The receipt which the revision applicant admittedly passed in favour of the opponent on 11-7-1969 was not stamped. It was produced along with the List Ex. 22, on 16-10-1973 and on the very day the trial Court passed an order that the document was a receipt and that the plaintiff should pay stamp duty and penalty in all Rs. 1.65. The stamp ditty and the penalty were paid on the same day as directed. Being aggrieved by this order, the revision applicant tiled Civil Revision Appln. No. 721/1974 in this Court. Mr. P. N. Kendurkar, learned counsel for the revision applicant is not sure whether this revision application was withdrawn or was dismissed but it appears from the order passed by the learned trial Judge on the application Ex. 36 that the revision application was dismissed. The learned trial Judge also rejected the application filed by the revision applicant praying that the document should not be admitted in evidence, should not be exhibited and acted upon. The receipt was thereafter exhibited as Ex. 38, and was referred to by the parties in their evidence.