RAMPRASAD BHAGIRATH AGRAWAL Vs. UTTAMCHAND DANMAL PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant impugns judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in an appeal (RCA No. 279/1989) reversing money decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Special Civil Suit No. 4/ 1978.

(2.) The appellant, who is original plaintiff, and respondent are inhabitants of same town. The appellant's case before the trial Court was that, out of friendship with the respondent, he advanced amounts of Rs. 10,000/- each on 5th July 1975 and 12th July 1975 to him. The respondent executed separate demand promissory notes each at the time of advancement of the amounts, on both the occasions. Though he made repeated demands, yet the respondent did not pay the amounts. He, therefore, issued demand notice dated 9th July 1977, which was duly served upon the respondent on 11th July 1977. The demand notice drew blank. Neither it was replied nor was complied with. Consequently, he filed suit for recovery of the advanced amounts along with interest @ 1.5 % p.m. and notice charges, totalling to Rs. 28,450/-.

(3.) By filing written statement (Exhibit-23) the respondent denied the suit claim and averments made by the appellant. He asserted that the appellant was dealing in money lending business. He asserted that earlier he had borrowed money from the appellant, on several occasions, at exorbitant rate of interest. According to him, though he executed the promissory notes in question, on two occasions, yet he repaid the amounts. He asserted that he was arrested during emergency period, during which the appellant exploited the situation, exerted influence on his son and got antedated promissory notes under duress from him and also a promissory note for Rs. 3000/-. He contended that the promissory notes are without consideration. He denied liability to pay the amounts. He further disputed the claim of interest on the ground that it is highly excessive. He submitted that appellant was engaged in money lending business without license and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.