BHAWRILAL GOENKA Vs. SHYAMPADA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1981 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Goalpara, Dhubri.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- with interest against the defendant on the allegations that on 15.4.1975 the defendant had borrowed Rs. 6,000/- from the plaintiff had agreed to repay the loan amount on demand and had executed a promissory note. The defendant did not make any payment despite demand. The defendant had denied that any loan was taken and pronote had been executed. The learned trial court by its judgment dated 29.3.1980 held that the plaintiffs case was correct and accordingly the suit was decreed. In appeal by the defendant the teamed appellate court below by it judgment impugned in this appeal held that it was not proved that the defendant had executed the pronote. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff has come in appeal and Shri A.R. Paul Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the teamed trial court had compared the admitted signature of the defendant on the written statement, his statement before the court as D.W. 1 and the dispute signature on the pronote and had come to the conclusion that the signature on the pronote was that of the defendant, but the appellate court below had come to different conclusion. Shri Paul Mazumdar has also contended that the proper course was to refer the disputed signature to a handwriting expert. The learned counsel for the appellant has accordingly submitted that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for the aforesaid purpose.