J G HEGDE Vs. R D SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel.

(2.) THE plaintiff has taken out this summons for judgment in the suit filed by him for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,18,000/- allegedly advanced by him to the defendant as a friendly loan together with interest thereon at 15% p. a. amounting to Rs. 98,000/ -. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is a Doctor by profession and is a social worker and a member of the Congress Party. He knew the defendant who was also a worker of the Congress Party. The defendant was carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Shivam Garments, and represented to the plaintiff that he had suffered losses in the partnership business and requested for a friendly loan for discharging his liabilities and paying of the share of his partner. The plaintiff took pity on the defendant and advanced him a friendly loan of Rs. 2,18,000/-which the defendant promised to repay with interest at 15% p. a. within a period of three years. The defendant has executed a writing styled as "affidavit cum indemnity Bond" dated 27th April 1998 duly affirmed before a Notary (Mr. D. J, Khatri)admitting his liability to repay Rs. 2,18,000/- with interest at 15% p. a. Xerox copy of the writing styled as "affidavit-cum-Indemnity bond" is annexed to the plaint as Exhibit-A.

(3.) THE defendant has resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing an affidavit in reply sworn in on 19th April 2000. The defendant has denied that he had incurred losses in the business and has further denied of having approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,18,000/- He has denied receipt of the loan, and has specifically denied having executed "affidavit-cum-Indemnity Bond" dated 27th April 1996, and has alleged that it was a forged and manipulated document. He has stated that he was a chief polling agent of the plaintiff, who was contesting assembly elections as a congress party candidate in the year 1996, and in connection with the work of the polling agent the defendant had signed some blank papers which the plaintiff appears to have used as a continuation sheets for fraudulently preparing "affidavit-cum-Indemnity Bond" dated 27th april 1996. In paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit, the defendant has reiterated his stand that the affidavit-cum-indemnity bond at Exhibit-A to the plaint was fabricated and forged document.