NANDLAL Vs. SURESHCHAND RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been preferred by the defendant/appellant against a judgment and decree dated 18th Aug. 2010 rendered in Civil Suit No. 14B/2008 by the District Judge Shivpuri (M.P.) thereby decreeing the suit against him for recovery of Rs. 60,870.00 with 6% simple interest as well as costs of the suit proceedings.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26th April 2007, the plaintiff/respondent advanced loan of Rs. 51,500.00 with monthly interest @ 1% to the defendant/appellant for his agricultural and personal use. For satisfaction of the debts, the defendant executed a promissory note in the presence of the two witnesses in favour of the plaintiff/creditor. It is stated that after repeated oral demands/requests and even on notice when the debtor/defendant did not return the advanced loan amount and accrued interest, the creditor/plaintiff instituted a suit against him for recovery. The defendant/appellant by submitting the written-statement denied the averments of the plaint. He further denied of taking the amount of Rs. 51,500.00 against loan for his agricultural and personal use for which the alleged promissory note was executed by him in presence of the witnesses. He pleaded that the promissory note does not bear his signature and so was forged and fabricated one. He further pleaded that the attesting witnesses are paid employees of the plaintiff who after connivance prepared a forged document. Taking the aforesaid grounds, the defendant/appellant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. The learned trial Judge after framing the issues and after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit for recovery as mentioned above, hence this appeal.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff in this case failed to prove the factum of execution of the disputed document i.e. the alleged promissory note by supporting cogent evidence and therefore the learned trial court erred in recording the findings and decreeing the suit against him. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions/omissions in the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses with respect to the questioned document which gave suspicion about existence of the same and therefore the learned trial court ought to have focused on this aspect of the matter and considered the statement of the Handwriting Expert in proper way. On this basis, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the judgment and decree may be dismissed with costs.