HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,200/- (Rs. 2,500/- as principal and Rs. 700/- as interest there to at the rate of 1 per cent per month ). The cause of action is based on a pronote and receipt executed on September 29, 1973 at village Narur. The said amount was agreed to be paid back by the defendant on demand along with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month (interest claim in the suit is only 1 per cent per month ).

(2.) DEFENDANT, in the written statement, admitted the execution of pronote but denied having received any consideration thereunder and the plea taken by him is that the plaintiff who happens to be one of his near relatives had come to him and told him that he should execute a pronote of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the plaintiff and that the purpose to get such an instrument executed was that it was to be shown to the person who was being persuaded to stand as a surety for him in the matter of issuance of passport for his going abroad- Further plea taken was that pronote was executed at Hoshiarpur where the defendant resides and, therefore, the Courts at Phagwara, which is a part of district Kapurthala, did not have the territorial jurisdiction. Another plea taken was that plaint had not been signed and verified by Mohan Singh, plaintiff himself or by a duly authorised person. Plea of suit being barred by limitation was also taken. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) IN appeal, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 regarding the pronote having been duly executed and for consideration; findings of the trial Court on issues No. 2 and 4a were reversed and it was held that the suit was within limitation; that even if there was any defect in the signing/verification of the plaint at the time of filing of the suit, the same stood cured when the plaint was duly signed and verified by the authorised agent at a later stage. Findings on issue Nos. 3 and 4 were not challenged. Appeal was accepted. Judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit it was ordered to be decreed.