HARKHIT SINGH Vs. RAMRATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the defendant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 400, with interest, said to have been advanced to the defendant on the 20th June, 1960, when the defendant had executed a handnote in plaintiff's favour. According to the plaintiff, she had lent this money to the defendant In order to accommodate him, and the defendant's case was that the handnote was a forged and fabricated document and he had taken no loan from the plaintiff. On the materials on record, the learned Small Cause Court Judge framed the following points for determination, namely:--

(2.) WHETHER the plaintiff has right to Institute the suit?" On weighing the oral evidence adduced in court, the learned Small Cause Court Judge has held, under point No. 1, that the plaintiff has been able to establish that she had lent the money to the defendant and that the handnote was a genuine document, under point No. 2, it has been held that the plaintiff was not a regular money lender and she had advanced the loan to the defendant, as he was a relation. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff's father-in-law. In connection with point No. 1, the plaintiff had examined her father-in-law, brother of the defendant, according to whom the defendant had taken the loan in question from the plaintiff in his presence. According to this witness (P. W. 1), the defendant had put his thumb mark and signature on the handnote in suit. So far as the defendant was concerned, he had examined himself. But the learned Judge was not in a position to accept the testimony of the defendant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the genuineness of the, hand-note had been disputed, the court should not have decreed the suit, unless the hand-note had been examined by an expert to prove that the thumb impression and the signature on it, purporting to be those of the defendant, were of the defendant. This argument is not valid, inasmuch as in the absence of any of the parties taking recourse to an examination of the handnote by an expert, there was no other alternative before the court, except to proceed on the oral evidence adduced by the parties, on a full consideration of the oral evidence the learned Judge has accepted the evidence of P. W. 1, and it is not possible to interfere in this context. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the plaintiff is said to have advanced a large sum of money, she was a professional money lender. This question has also been decided by the learned Judge against the defendant and there does not appear to be any material on record for any contrary conclusion. In the result, this application must fail and it is dismissed. As the parties are related, there will be no order for costs.