MANI CHARAN PANIGRAHI Vs. RADHAMADHAB PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant prefers this appeal against the judgment dated 9-5-1979 and decree dated 22-6-1979 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balesore in Original Suit No. 29 of 1976-III decreeing the plaintiff' suit, on contest, with costs for recovery of Rs. 10,845.78 paise together with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

(2.) The plaintiff' case may be briefly stated as follows : The plaintiff is a registered money-lender and on 20-4-1975 the defendant borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- executing a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said amount, on demand, together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. On 15-7-1975 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards the dues of the said loan and made an endorsement to that effect on the reverse side of the promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay any further amount towards the discharge of the promissory note dues despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff. So the plaintiff served a registered notice, through his Advocate, on 22-3-1976 demanding of the defendant to pay the entire balance dues. The defendant did not give any reply to that notice, nor did he pay any amount towards the discharge of the promissory note dues. Hence, the plaintiff was compelled to file this suit for recovery of Rs. 10,845.78 paise, the balance dues under the suit promissory note by the date of filing of the suit together with further interest.

(3.) The gist of the averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant, may be briefly stated as follows : On 20-4-1975 the defendant borrowed only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and had given the plaintiff a blank paper containing his left thumb impression and signature and making use of it the plaintiff had fabricated the suit promissory note showing as if Rs. 10,000/- was borrowed by him. The defendant had paid the plaintiff Rs. 8,000/- towards the full discharge of the entire dues under the suit promissory note. So, nothing more was due under the suit promissory note. But as the defendant demanded of the plaintiff to return the suit promissory note the letter filed the suit with false allegations.