R HANFI Vs. YOGENDRA SINGH DASHMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant /defendant has directed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16/2/2005, passed by the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Balaghat, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5-B/04 affirming the judgment and decree dated 5/1/2004 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Balaghat in Civil Original Suit No. 4-B/03 decreeing the suit of the respondent against him for the sum of Rs.20,000.00 alongwith the interest @ 8%.p.a. from the date of filing the suit, i.e. 31/3/2003 and the costs.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit against the applicant contending that the applicant had taken the loan of Rs. 20,000/- from him on 15.2.02, for which he also executed an acknowledgment deed on the same day. Subsequently when such sum was not repaid by the applicant, then he gave him a demand notice dated 10.3.03, inspite its service, the same was not complied with. On the contrary, it was replied on false pretext stating that no such transaction had taken place between him and the respondent. With these pleadings the impugned money suit was filed by the respondent against the applicant.

(3.) APPLICANT's counsel after taking me through the pleadings of the parties, evidence available on record and the exhibited documents argued that on proper appreciation of such evidence, the suit of the respondent ought to have been dismissed by both the courts below but the same-was decreed under wrong appreciation of the evidence. According to him the respondent herein could neither prove the alleged loan transaction nor the execution of alleged acknowledgment deed by the applicant. In continuation, she said that alleged acknowledgment deed being not written or executed on requisite revenue ticket or stamp is not admissible under the existing law. Thus, the decree being based on such document is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he placed his reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the matter of Naladhar Mahapatra and another Vs. Seva Dibya and others reported in AIR 1991, Orissa, Page 166. However, in response of query of the court whether objection regarding admissibility of such document, the acknowledgment deed, (Ex. P-1) was taken by the applicant at the appropriate stage of the case in the trial court when the same was being exhibited in the case, on which he fairly conceded that no such objection was taken at that stage or even at the stage of First Appeal. The same was taken in the appellate court and now is being taken in this revision and prayed for admission and allowing this revision.