MOHAN LAL Vs. BHUPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-defendant, Mohan Lal, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Chittorgarh wherein the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent-plaintiff, Bhupal Singh.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Bhupal Singh, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.46,200/-, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant-defendant, Mohan Lal, had taken a loan of Rs.30,000/- for his household needs. It was agreed that on the said loan amount, he would pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. THE said loan was paid to him on 07.11.2003. From 07.11.2003 to 04.11.2006, he owed an interest of Rs.16,200/-. THErefore, he owed a total amount of Rs.46,200/-. In order to repay the said loan amount, he had given a promissory note to the respondent-plaintiff. However, since he was unwilling to repay the said loan amount, the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit.

(3.) MR. Sandeep Saruparia, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the respondent-plaintiff has failed to examine his son, Pradeep Kumar, who was the author of the promissory note. Therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been read against him. Secondly, the respondent-plaintiff has examined only interested witnesses. For, Ashok Kumar (P.W.3) happens to be the respondent-plaintiff's employee. Therefore, his testimony cannot be believed. Thirdly, the witnesses have admitted the fact that they did not know the appellant-defendant. Fourthly, there is no evidence to show that there was a passing of consideration. Therefore, the promissory note cannot be given effect too. Fifthly, the appellant-defendant had claimed that, in fact, he had bought two tyres and there was some dispute with regard to the amount required to be paid by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. He had further claimed that he was asked to sign blank piece of paper containing revenue stamps. Subsequently, the blank piece of paper was used for creating promissory note.