HARI RAM Vs. NARPAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff having lost in both the Courts has filed second appeal against the judgment, decree dated 07.09.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 46 -S/ 13 of 1999, affirming judgment, decree dated 29.09.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Arki, in Civil Suit No. 183/1 of 1994.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Smt. Janki had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/ - from the appellant and she allegedly executed a promissory note on 09.01.1989. Smt. Janki did not pay the aforesaid amount. She only paid Rs.3,575/ -interest for 33 months from January, 1989, to September, 1991 through his General Power of Attorney Jagdish Chand, who made necessary endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note.

(3.) THE suit has been contested by respondent by taking preliminary objections such as limitation, cause of action, maintainability. On merits, it has been alleged that Smt. Janki had executed a Will in favour of respondent. It has been alleged that appellant is practicing as an Advocate at Arki and he always appeared against Smt. Janki in at least three cases. It could not be imagined that an Advocate appearing against rival party would give money on loan to said person. Smt. Janki had no relations with appellant. It has been denied that Smt. Janki borrowed any amount from appellant or she executed any pronote. Jagdish Chand, who allegedly made an endorsement on the promissory note is brother -in -law of appellant. The Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Janki in favour of Jagdish Chand was revoked on 05.10.1991. Jagdish Chand even after the revocation of the General Power of Attorney obtained a loan for Smt. Janki on 08.10.1991 and now is facing criminal case under Section 420 IPC in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arki. The appellant kept mum from 09.01.1989 till 19.09.1994 and it is only after the death of Smt. Janki that he issued notice upon respondent and thereafter filed a suit on 29.09.1994. It has been alleged that pronote is not genuine and appellant is not entitled to recover any amount from the respondent.