JAGBIR SINGH Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGIR Singh defendant has filed this appeal wherein challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, decreeing the suit for recovery filed by Hukam Chand plaintiff, as well as the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby his (defendant's) appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Hukam Chand plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month against Jagir Singh defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5% per month by executing a pronote and receipt on 30.4.1993 but the same has not been repaid to him despite several demands having been made in respect thereof. The defendant contested the suit taking the plea of denial simpliciter. It was pleaded by him that he had never executed any pronote or receipt as alleged in the plaint nor he had borrowed the sum of Rs. 90,000/-. It was further stated that the defendant-appellant was selling his crop on the shop of M/s. Krishan Chand and Brothers where Hukam Chand plaintiff was a partner and during that period the defendant used to advance money for agricultural purposes. During that process the plaintiff might have got the blank papers thumb marked from the defendant and later on converted them into pronote and the receipt. Thus, according to the defendant, the said pronote and the receipt were without consideration. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) THE contention raised by Mr. Gupta has vehemently been controverted by Mr. Arun Sanghi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. It has been contended by Mr. Sanghi that at the time when the pronote and the receipt in question were executed, the amended Stamp Act had not come in force. Another contention raised by him is that no application for framing of additional issue had ever been made by the defendant either before the trial Court or before the Additional District Judge. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent in the absence of any application in this regard either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court, appellant is estopped from raising this issue at this belated stage.