(1.) The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the appeal.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the material available on record it was well proved that the defendant-respondent had borrowed Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees two lacs and ten thousand only) from the appellant against pronote and receipt and when he failed to repay the same then the appellant-plaintiff was constrained to file the suit before learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurgaon. Both the Courts below without appreciating the facts and the law on the subject have rejected the prayer of the appellant-plaintiff.
(3.) On notice issued by the Court, the respondentdefendant appeared and filed the written statement taking the preliminary objections that the appellant-plaintiff had not filed the suit on the basis of true facts. In fact the material facts were concealed by the appellant-plaintiff. It was alleged that appellant-plaintiff was running a committee consisting of 15 members. At the request of the appellant-plaintiff, the respondent-defendant became member of the two committees and he had to pay Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only). The respondent-defendant also became partner of half share with regard to payment of Rs. 90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand only) with Rajiv Kumar Upadhaya . The respondent-defendant had paid all the instalments as per settlement. It was also alleged that the respondent-defendant had not obtained any amount from the committee. It was further averred in the written statement that appellant-plaintiff was a very clever person and had a mala fide intention. Pronote and the receipt were forged. It was also averred that the defendant-respondent had neither obtained the loan from the appellant-plaintiff nor executed the documents as alleged. He also prayed that the appellant-plaintiff be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.