ARJAN SINGH Vs. VIRSA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal against the judgments of the Courts below, whereby, his suit for recovery of Rs.2,09,000/- (Rs.1,10,000/- as pronote amount and Rs.99,000/- as interest) has been dismissed. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant took a loan of Rs.1,10,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt dated 24.10.2006 in regard thereto in the presence of the witnesses and scribe. Interest @ 2.5% per month was agreed to be paid on the loan amount. At the time of institution of the suit, a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- was due from the defendant.

(2.) The defendant raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands. He had not disclosed that he was a commission agent. The defendant contested the suit alleging that the plaintiff, in connivance with the deed writer and the witness, had forged the alleged pronote and receipt. It was alleged that the wording of the pronote had been fabricated. In fact the defendant had only taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the the firm of the plaintiff on 24.10.2006 which was also clear from a statement prepared and given to the defendant by the plaintiff himself. In the pronote the amount had been enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- by inserting '1'. The defendant never went to Tehsil Complex for execution the alleged pronote.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and proved the pronote and receipt as Ex.P1 and Ex. P2. He further examined PW2 Sukhraj Singh, marginal witness who corroborated the statement of PW1 and deposed that the pronote and receipt had been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff by taking a loan of Rs.1,10,000/- on 24.10.2006. Deed Writer