MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against dismissal of his money suit for recovery of Rs.64,000/- by the Court of 15 th ADJ, Indore vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.13-B/2005.

(2.) Briefly stated relevant facts are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.64,000/- with allegations that the defendant, on account of his need, received a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his business in the name and style of M/s. Neha Pulses and executed a receipt in his own handwriting and under his own signature on 05.01.2000 on his letterhead. Interest was orally agreed at the rate of 1.50% per month. Defendant did not make the repayment. Consequently, demand notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 06.07.2001. Service was avoided by the defendant and consequently, notice came back unserved. Thus, the plaintiff instituted suit for Rs.64,000/-, which included interest to the tune of Rs.13,750/- and notice expenses Rs.250/-. Defendant, after being served with the summons, submitted his written statement refuting thereby averments contained in the plaint. He, inter-alia, stated that he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff and further, he had no need of money. It has been stated specifically that defendant has not obtained money from the plaintiff and did not execute the alleged receipt. Plaintiff has prepared it by forgery.

(3.) In the evidence, plaintiff examined himself and handwriting expert, namely, Harbans Singh Tuteja. On the other hand, defendant examined himself alone. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had obtained a lone of Rs.50,000/- from him. Needless to state that the statement as well as the report of the handwriting expert were also not believed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005, this appeal has been preferred.