BAL KRISHAN ALIAS BAL KISHAN Vs. AMAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) VIDE its detailed judgment dated 14.6.1978, learned trial Court decreed the claim made in the suit in its entirety with costs, holding that the pronote as also the receipt were both duly executed by Defendant -Appellant and for consideration, that the suit was filed within time, that the suit was not barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the Plaintiff Respondent had never waived his claim for the suit amount, that the interest and costs were both recoverable by Plaintiff -Respondent from Defendant -Appellant because Defendant -Appellant was a trader and not a small farmer as claimed in the written statement and that the plaint was duly stamped in valuation. Finding on all the 14 issues framed by the learned trial Court was thus against the Defendant -Appellant.

(3.) HANDWRITING expert Veer Kumar Sakhuja examined by Defendant Appellant as D. W. 2 before the learned trial Court to Substantiate his contention of want of execution of the pronote and receipt and alteration of the date of execution of the pronote and the receipt allegedly from 15.1.1970 to 15.11.1970 having not been believed by the learned trial Court for cogent and convincing reasons recorded in its assailed judgment, learned trial Court aptly based its decision in this regard on the reliable depositions of the scribe Parma Nand P. W. 2, attesting witness Loon Karan P.W. 1 and Plaintiff -Respondent Amar Lal P. W. 3. Interested denial of Defendant -Appellant Bal Krishan both in regard to the execution of the pronote and the receipt as also in regard to the non -receipt of consideration therefore was also rightly ignored by it. Its finding on issues Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 is affirmed.