SHAM LAL Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)

(2.) FOR the reasons shown in the application, C.M. is allowed. Order dated 17.2.2010 is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number.

(3.) THE defendant has contested the suit by way of filing written statement and has contended that infact defendant has borrowed ` 9,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent and instead of getting pronote executed plaintiff-respondent got executed agreement in question from the defendant. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit by observing that plaintiff could prove agreement to sell in question successfully and defendant failed to discharge his burden that agreement in question was executed in lieu of pronote for the money borrowed by the defendant.