HARNEK SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "the Code") against the judgment and decree dated 31. 7. 2002 passed by the District Judge, sirsa reversing the judgment and decree dated 26. 7. 2001 passed by the civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa. The Civil Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent seeking recovery of Rs. 80,840/- (Rs. 47,000/- as principal and Rs. 33,840/- as interest ). The District Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the defendant -appellant duly executed the promissory note Ex. P1 and the receipt Ex. P2. It has also been held that the consideration amount was passed on to the defendant-appellant at the time of execution. Therefore, a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, the Act)has been raised in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The learned District Judge has taken into consideration various factors which weighed with the Civil Judge to discard the promissory note Ex. P1 and the receipt Ex. P2. The views of the District Judge regarding the error committed by the Civil Judge and recording his own finding read as under :

(2.) I have heard Mr. PS. Jammu, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant who has submitted that as a matter of fact, no consideration passed on to the defendant-appellant at the time of the execution of the promissory note and that the plaintiff-respondent was not resident of village Rori. The learned Counsel has further submitted that in such circumstances, the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff under section 118 of the Act stand rebutted.

(3.) THE celebrated argument raised by learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant would not require any detailed and serious consideration because no documentary or oral evidence has been placed on record which may sufficiently replace the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff-respondent that the promissory note is supported by consideration. The thumb impression of the defendant-appellant on the promissory note and the receipt have even been admitted by his own witness as is clear from the para extracted from the judgment of the District Judge. The question with regard to presumption in favour of consideration under Section 118 (a) of the Act has repeatedly been considered by the Supreme Court. In the case of Bharat Barrel and Drum manufacturing Co. v. Aman Chand Pyarelal, AIR 1999 SC 1008, Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :