BANTA SINGH Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the suit for recovery of the plaintiffrespondent has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as principal amount and a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of advancement of loan i.e. 18.06.1999 till the date of decree dated 30.05.2007. The said amount is to carry future interest @ 6% p.a. from the said date of decree.

(2.) The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 18.06.1999 after committing himself to repay the same alongwith interest to be charged @ 2% per month. At the time of raising of this loan, defendant executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff as consideration thereof in presence of witnesses who also signed the same in token of the completion of said transaction. However, defendant did not stick to his promise regarding repayment of the said amount, rather he failed to pay anything either towards the principal amount or towards interest charged, on the basis of which suit was filed on 07.03.2001. The defendant in defence denied having taking of the loan at any point of time much less on 18.6.1999 from the plaintiff at the alleged rate of interest or that he executed the pronote and receipt in question in favour of the defendant. It was contended that the witnesses are the hench men of the plaintiff and plaintiff runs business of Commission Agent at Mandi Gidderbaha and the defendant had been selling his produce as an Aarthi to the plaintiff at his shop firm Girdhari Lal Surinder Kumar, Gidderbaha.

(3.) The defendant had been bringing his produce at the plaintiff's shop uptill 3.5.1998, when a dispute between them arose as the plaintiff did not pay the price of a trolley of wheat weighing about 60 Maunds to the defendant. The defendant convened a Panchayat consisting of Nohar Chand, Motha Singh and Gurjant Singh, all residents of Maan and brought them to the plaintiff. They all requested the plaintiff to show the account of the defendant. The assertion of the defendant was found correct after perusing the account and the Panchayat reprimanded the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant left the shop of the plaintiff and also told his said behaviour to the other Aarthis who left the shop of the plaintiff. The plaintiff felt offended and served a notice upon the defendant by one Harmel Singh of Gidderbaha and when defendant approached Harmel Singh alongwith respectables of the village, the said Harmel Singh told that whatever the notice had been served on the defendant the same has been served by the plaintiff. It is accordingly pleaded that the plaintiff had been getting his signatures on the blank form on the pretext that the same are required to be produced in certain offices in respect of the sale of crop by the defendant and the plaintiff had fabricated the pronote and receipt in question by using the said blank form on which signatures of the defendant were obtained by the plaintiff as stated above. Whenever defendant used to take amount from the plaintiff, the plaintiff had been making entries in his diary and the diary was not traceable and the same would be produced as and when traced.