BANCHANIDHI PANDA Vs. BAISHNAB CHARAN ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in revision challenging an affirming appellate judgment against him in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of an alleged promissory note dated 29-9-1969.

(2.) The defence was that the document which has now been produced and marked as Ext. 1 had been given as a blank paper with the defendant's signature on the revenue stamp evidencing a loan of Rs. 200/- from a different person and at the instance of the lender of Rs. 200/-, the left hand thumb impression and signature had also been affixed on the back side of that blank paper. The plaintiff obtained the document from the lender, converted it into a regular promissory note and though no loan had actually been taken, the suit was filed on the basis of the converted document.

(3.) Both the Courts have found as a fact that a blank paper has been converted into the alleged promissory note. They have been impressed by the feature that while witnesses state that the entire document and the signature had been in one ink, to the naked eye it appears that the writing is in one ink while the signature of the defendant-borrower is in another ink. They have also taken the other oral evidence into consideration to find that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant borrowed the amount claimed on the basis of the promissory note after its due execution. The entire oral evidence consisted of the plaintiff being examined as P. W. 1 and his usual scribe as P. W. 2. The plaintiff seems to be a money-lender in the regular course of business and if his business was extensive, the scribe who normally writes out his documents would be vitally interested in him. Keeping that aspect in view, the scribe's evidence was taken as not to come from an independent source. I do not think, I am entitled in Civil Revision to appreciate the evidence with a view to reaching a different, conclusion and accept the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner.