BARJU DAS Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision arising out of a decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge, Cuttack, in a suit based on what is called a blank handnote. The plaintiff is a pleader and says that he lent a sum of Rs. 150/- on a promissory note marked Ext. A which contains merely a signature with the words "Rs. 150/-" on a one-anna stamp. The signature is denied by the defendant as a forgery and the loan also is denied.

(2.) The plaintiff examined himself and another person, one Baidyanath Panda, who, it is said, was present at the time of the transaction. The defendant denied this and alleged that there was bitter enmity between himself and the plaintiff's uncle-in-law relating to the marriage of his daughter. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was in great hurry and so he gave his signature on a blank paper as there was not enough time to execute a formally completed handnote.

(3.) The document has been marked and treated as a handnote. The learned Small Cause Judge has entered into an elaborate discussion of the writing and a comparison of the same with other, writings of the defendant. It is rather remarkable that the learned S. C. C. Judge has overlooked the fact that this piece of writing, even if it be genuine, cannot be taken to create any liability on the part of the defendant, that it is no evidence of any loan having been contracted and that it is certainly not a promissory note as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no promise to pay, no acknowledgment of any liability, nor any admission of having borrowed, and I am surprised that the learned S. C. C. Judge should have treated this document which is no better than a scrap of paper -- as a document creating a liability in favour of the plaintiff.