GOPAL SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed suit for recovery alleging that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him after executing a pro-note and receipt on 23.02.2005 in the presence of the marginal witnesses and agreed to repay it along with interest @ 2% per month. The defendant has urged that he had taken 8 killas of land on Batai from the plaintiff with an understanding that the plaintiff would incur half share of the expenses and would get half share of the crops. It was further alleged that on the asking of the plaintiff, the defendant started dealing with the commission agent Ashok Kumar leaving the shop of his own commission agent Krishan Lal @ Gora, New Grain Market, Muktsar. He had to pay Rs. 12,000/- to Krishan Lal which were paid through the plaintiff and at that time, the plaintiff got his signatures on some blank pro-note and receipt. He denied that he had borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.02.2005. The Trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,75,500/- with costs. The plaintiff was also held entitled to pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum. The interest was recoverable on the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. The appeal of the defendant was also dismissed but with a modification in the rate of interest only as the rate of interest from 12% per annum was reduced to 9% per annum to be paid by the defendant on the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- w.e.f. 23.02.2005 till the date of decision of the suit i.e. 23.03.2009 and the future interest @ 6% per annum was also held payable only on the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant-defendant has submitted that he had also filed an application before the Trial Court that his signatures were taken by the plaintiff on blank pro-note and receipt in the year 2001 which has been fabricated as a pro-note (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) in the year 2005. It was prayed that the age of the revenue stamps affixed on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 be got verified from the Government Security Press, Nasik, which would establish that the revenue stamps bearing signatures of the defendant is of the year 2001. The said application was contested and dismissed by the Trial Court on 23.01.2009, which was not allegedly dealt with by the lower Appellate Court, though the said order was alleged to have been challenged before it.

(3.) Precisely on this matter, notice of motion was issued by this Court.