PURAN CHAND Vs. DIWAKAR DUTT MODGIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and gone through the record.

(2.) A suit, based on a pronote, was filed against the appellant-defendant for recovery of money mentioned in the pronote, together with interest. It was stated that the appellant-defendant had purchased building material from the respondent-plaintiff, on credit, and when he could not pay the price, he executed a pronote Ext. PW1/A. Appellant-defendant stated that his signatures had been obtained on revenue stamps and later on those stamps were affixed on the pronote and the receipt.

(3.) Trial Court after, recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant had executed the pronote and drew presumption that it was executed for consideration. Consequently, suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by the defendant before the District Judge stands dismissed, vide impugned judgment and decree. Appellant-defendant has now filed this second appeal.