HARNAM SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the defendant, who has concurrently lost before the two Courts below in a suit for recovery instituted by the respondent -plaintiff.

(2.) IT is apparent that the respondent -plaintiff, basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 17.11.1999, allegedly executed by appellant -defendant, filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,58,000/ - which includes principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - and Rs. 1,08,000/ - as interest raised thereupon. The stand of the appellant was of total denial, being forged documents, but neither any evidence was produced nor he himself appeared in the witness -box to substantiate his plea that the documents in question are forged one. Thus, both the courts below, on the strength of the evidence of plaintiff himself coupled with the testimony of Buta Singh, the attesting witness to the said pronote and receipt dated 17.11.1999, which goes un -rebutted on record, held that the pronote and receipt in question were duly executed by the defendant after having receipt the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - from the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/ -, after assessing the interest amount to Rs. 54.000/ - instead of Rs. 1,08,000/ -, as claimed by the plaintiff and further directed the defendant to pay pendente lite and future interest @ 6% on the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - from the date of filing of suit till final realization of the decretal amount. The plea of the appellant regarding rejection of plaint on the ground that the court fee was paid late by the plaintiff was rightly turned down by the appellant court below in the light of the fact that the deficiency in the court fee was made good by the plaintiff with the permission of the Court and it will have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid at the first instance by the plaintiff.