GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. PARMA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Parma Dass filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,72,382 against the appellant on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 15.8.2001. The case of respondent-plaintiff, in brief, is that the appellant-defendant took a loan of Rs. 4,50,000 on 15.8.2001 and executed a pronote and receipt on that day as collateral security. The rate of interest was agreed @ 1.56% per month. A sum of Rs. 5,72,382 which included Rs. 4,50,000 as principal amount and Rs. 1,22,382 as interest, was outstanding against appellant-defendant at the time of filing of the suit which he failed to repay despite repeated requests, compelling the respondent to file the suit for recovery.

(2.) The appellant-defendant in the written statement denied the taking of loan of Rs. 4,50,000 from the plaintiff on interest @ 1.56% per month and execution of the pronote and receipt for the said amount in favour of respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendant pleaded that he used to sell his crop through a commission agency of one Omkar of village Dharonki, Tehsil Nabha. On settlement of his account with said Omkar, he obtained thumb impression of appellant-defendant on blank pronote and receipt about 8-9 years back. Thereafter, the appellant started selling his crop and agricultural produce through some other commission agent. Said Omkar became bankrupt, closed his business, sold his house and left Nabha. He had misappropriated the money of several farmers and other persons. He was best friend of respondent-plaintiff, who appeared to have obtained the signed blank pronote and receipt of appellant-defendant from said Omkar. The pronote and receipt, on the basis of which this suit was filed, were forged and fabricated documents having several cuttings, additions and alterations. Initially, the pronote was filled for Rs. 50,000, half of which comes to Rs. 25,000. Later on the respondent converted the amount of Rs. 50,000 into Rs. 4,50,000 by adding digit '4' and the amount of Rs. 25,000 into Rs. 2,25,000 by adding digit '2'. This alteration is very much clear in the pronote and receipt. Moreover, the loan amount has not been mentioned anywhere in words in the pronote and receipt which creates further doubt about the amount for which alleged pronote and receipt was initially prepared. In this manner, respondent-plaintiff played fraud with the appellant-defendant. He had kept said Omkar as witness of the alleged pronote and receipt.

(3.) Respondent-plaintiff denied the averments of appellant in the replication and reiterated his claim as put forth in the plaint.