ARJINDER SINGH Vs. VIRK BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Arjinder Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondents/plaintiffs i.e. M/s Virk Brothers Commission Agents, a partnership firm and its partner Manjit Singh filed suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs 7,32,583/- alleging that the defendant who is agriculturist used to sell his crop at the shop of the plaintiffs and also used to borrow money from the plaintiffs from time to time. On 3.11.2003 and 5.11.2003 the defendant borrowed Rs three lacs each and on 10.12.2003, the defendant borrowed Rs 3500/- and signed Bahi entries regarding these amounts. However, thereafter the defendant stopped selling his produce at the shop of the plaintiffs and did not return the aforesaid amount of Rs 6,03,500/-. The plaintiffs also claimed interest thereon @ 1.5% per month as prevalent in the market.

(2.) The defendant admitted that he used to sell his crop at the shop of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant denied having received Rs three lacs each on 3.11.2003 and 5.11.2003 or having signed Bahi entries for the same. The defendant, however, admitted that he had borrowed Rs. 3500/- from the plaintiffs on 10.12.2003 and at that time plaintiff no. 2 obtained signatures of defendant at three places in the Bahi of the plaintiffs and in this manner the plaintiffs might have obtained the signatures of defendant on entries dated 3.11.2003 and 5.11.2003 while obtaining his signatures on entry dated 10.12.2003. The defendant broadly denied the other plaint allegations and raised various other pleas.

(3.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 21.5.2007 decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs 6,03,500/- with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the respective dates of advancement till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred the instant second appeal.