SOHAN SINGH Vs. AMRITPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sohan Singh son of Gik Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") filed the suit against Amritpal Singh son of Narinder Singh-respondent-defendant (for short "the defendant") for a decree of recovery of Rs. 73125/- (Rs. 60,000/- principal plus interest), inter-alia pleading that he (defendant) borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from him (plaintiff) on 2.1.2001 on interest at the rate of 2% per month and executed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) in this respect. According to the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to repay the amount alongwith interest on demand, but he has refused to repay the same, despite repeated requests. It necessitated him to file the suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of recovery against the defendant, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, limitation, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. The case set up by the defendant, in brief in so far as relevant, was that on 2.1.2001, he did not borrow the amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the plaintiff, whereas in fact, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 37,500/- on interest on 29.11.1999 and executed the pronote (Ex.D2) and receipt (Ex.D3) in his favour. The pronote and receipt were attested by Ashok Kumar and Tarsem Lal. Again on 29.1.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff and another pronote (Ex.D4) and receipt (Ex.D5) were also executed on the same day, which were attested by Ashok Kumar and Darshan Singh. The defendant claimed that on 2.1.2001, the plaintiff had compounded and worked out the principal amount of both the above said pronotes and receipts alongwith interest at the rate of 2% per month as Rs. 60,000/-. In this manner, he got scribed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2), without payment of any amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Earlier amounts, subject matter of pronotes and receipts (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5) were stated to have already been paid by the defendant and received by the plaintiff. In all, the defendant pleaded that the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) were executed, in lieu of principal amount and interest, subject matter of earlier pronotes and receipts (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5), which, the plaintiff has already received. The story put forth by the plaintiff for payment of Rs. 60,000/- as loan, in pursuance of pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2), was stated to be false and fabricated. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication, wherein, the factum of taking loan of Rs. 37,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- by the defendant and execution of pronotes and receipts (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5) was admitted. It was specifically admitted that the defendant had already repaid the amount of earlier pronotes and receipts to him (plaintiff) .