AVTAR SINGH Vs. DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Didar Singh had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.6,77,600.00 i.e. Rs.4,40,000.00 as principal amount and Rs.2,37,600.00 as interest thereon @ Rs.1.50% per month from 1/6/2010 to 30/5/2013 against defendant Avtar Singh, on the basis of pronote and receipt dtd. 1/6/2010 on the averments that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.4,40,000.00 from the plaintiff repayable with interest @1.50% per month on 1/6/2010, executing a pronote and receipt of even date in favour of the plaintiff, attested by Sukhdev Singh and Balkar Singh. The defendant had appended his thumb impressions on such documents. The loan had been raised by the defendant from the plaintiff for the purpose of construction of house and to meet his domestic needs. He had promised to return the loan amount with interest to the plaintiff as and when demanded by him. The plaintiff called upon the defendant several times to return the loan amount with interest but the defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other and thereafter finally refused to do so, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.

(2.) On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement, contesting the suit, raising various legal objections, contending that the suit was not maintainable; the plaintiff had concealed the material facts from the Court; no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff to bring the suit; the plaintiff lacked locus standi to file the suit etc. On merits, the defendant denied having borrowed a sum of Rs.4,40,000.00 from the plaintiff or executing the pronote and receipt in his favour on 1/6/2010 or undertaking to return the alleged amount with interest @ 1.50% per month. The defendant contended that he is a matriculate, as such, an educated person, appending his signatures on the necessary documents. Therefore, there was no question of his putting thumb impression on pronote and receipt. Refuting the remaining assertions, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-