NATHA SINGH Vs. MITTAL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 11-4-2007, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which, it accepted the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent, and set aside the judgment and decree dated 6-10-2005, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts, relevant for the decision of this appeal, are that, Ramesh Chand, the sole proprietor of M/s. Mittal Traders, Patran (plaintiff/respondent), was doing the business of commission agent. It was stated that the defendant/appellant, who had been selling his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, cleared/adjusted his entire previous account, on 17-11-2001, by receiving the balance amount, from the plaintiff/respondent, and signed the entry, in this regard, in his (plaintiff/respondent's) rokan bahi. It was further stated that after adjusting the entire previous account, on 17-11-2001, the defendant/appellant, did not sell his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, in April 2002, and in September/October, 2002. It was further stated that, thereafter, the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 97,000/- from the plaintiff/respondent, to meet his various domestic needs, making promise, to him that, in future, he would sell his entire agricultural produce, at his (plaintiff/respondent's) shop. It was further stated that, the defendant/appellant, after borrowing the loan amount, in the sum of Rs. 97,000/-, from the plaintiff/respondent, on 25-11-2002, signed the entry, in the rokar bahi, regularly maintained, by the plaintiff/respondent, in the ordinary course of business. It was further stated that, the defendant/appellant, thereafter, neither came, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, nor returned the borrowed amount, in the sum of Rs. 97,000/-, nor adjusted the same. The defendant/appellant, was many a time asked, to repay the borrowed amount along with interest, but to no avail. On the final refusal of the defendant/appellant, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :-