MOHINDER PAL Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Mahinder Pal had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.3.00 lacs against Gurcharan Singh and Avtar Singh under Order 37 CPC on the basis of pronote and receipt dtd. 18/1/2006.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiff, on 18/1/2006 defendant No.1 Gurcharan Singh had raised a loan of Rs.2,50,000.00 from defendant No.2 Avtar Singh and in lieu thereof had executed a pronote and receipt of the even date in favour of the latter, agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 2% per month; that the purpose of raising of loan was purchase of house and a receipt for the same was scribed by defendant No.1 himself; that vide writing dtd. 2/1/2009 made on the back of original pronote and receipt, defendant No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.68,000.00 to defendant No.2, thereby acknowledging payment of principal amount and remaining interest; that vide endorsement dtd. 2/3/2010, the defendant No.2 sold the said pronote and receipt along with its acknowledgement dtd. 2/1/2009 to the plaintiff authorizing him to collect the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 along with remaining interest from defendant No.2; that after adjusting an amount of Rs.68,000.00 towards total interest of Rs.1,25,000.00 @ 2% per month, the balance interest amount comes to Rs.57,000.00 but he relinquished Rs.7,000.00 from the remaining interest amount of Rs.57,000.00 and sought recovery of Rs.50,000.00 only on account of interest. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 had presented the pronote and receipt to defendant No.1 requesting him to make the payment, however after making payment of Rs.68,000.00 out of interest, defendant No.1 refused to pay the balance interest as well as principal amount; thereafter the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 after presenting the original pronote and receipt to make the payment of principal amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 as well as interest of Rs.50,000.00 but he refused to do so, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.

(3.) Defendant No.1 filed written statement wherein he took up various legal objections that the suit was time barred; that the plantiff had no locus standi to file the suit since no transaction had ever taken place as asserted; that the plaintiff had filed the suit against him on the basis of false, forged and fabricated pronote and receipt and had not come to the Court with clean hands; that as a matter of fact, the answering defendant had not raised any loan from the defendant No.2 and had not executed any pronote and receipt in his favour, therefore the question of agreeing to pay any interest on the principal amount did not arise at all. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit.