BALBIR SINGH Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS defendant's appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon on 25.7.1998 and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Jind on 28.9.2001.

(2.) ANIL Kumar had filed a suit asserting that the defendant-appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from him on 24.6.1992. The defendant had executed a pronote and receipt as well as agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensum. The interest on the date of the filing of the suit came to more than Rs. 20,000/- but the claim was restricted to the aforesaid amount and recovery of a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- was sought. Defendant had denied the transaction as well as any agreement to pay interest on the amount alleged to have been borrowed by him. He also denied execution of the pronote and receipt. He had also asserted that the plaintiff was money lender who had not obtained licence for the same and so the suit was liable to be dismissed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) THE short ground, on which the reversal of the view taken by the Courts below is sought for, is the fact that the plaintiff had not appeared in the witness box and there is only statement of his father appearing as power of attorney to prove the transaction. The Court below had relied upon the testimony of Ram Chander PW3, the father of the plaintiff, to prove the execution of the pronote as not only pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 had been executed in his presence but also the amount too had been paid at the same time. Bhagwan Dass PW1 and Ram Bilas PW2 have also supported the plaintiff's version. In view of this, the trial Court had relied upon the testimony of these PWs for coming to the conclusion that there was nothing in law, which would prevent the holder of general power of attorney to depose regarding the circumstances, in which any particular transaction had taken place.