INDRA MAL SON OF SHRI SOBHAG MAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LAL HAVELI, MAHAVEER CHOWK, PURANI TONK, AT PRESENT HAVING A FLOUR SHOP AT BABARON KA CHOWK, PURANI TONK, DISTRICT TONK, RAJASTHAN Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR, BRANCH TONK THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has arisen out of judgment and decree dated 31.5.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tonk, in Regular Civil Appeal No.41/2013 (29/2010), whereby the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Tonk in Civil Suit No.15/2003 to the effect that the plaintiff Bank is entitled to realise Rs.38,723/- along with interest thereon from the date of presentation of the suit against the defendant-appellant. He is also entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 1.4.2003 and @ 6% w.e.f. date of judgment i.e. 28.4.2010.

(2.) In brief, facts of the matter are that on 26.4.2003 respondent/plaintiff filed a suit before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Tonk, against the appellant/defendant under Order 37, Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure averring inter alia that the appellant requested the Bank to grant him a loan of Rs.20,000.00 to run a Kirana shop business. Whereupon, a loan of Rs.20,000.00 was granted. At the time of sanctioning of loan, various documents such as term deposit delivery letter, loan agreement letter, etc. were executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent Bank. Thereafter, the appellant deposited instalments of the loan at different intervals and on 31.3.2003, Rs.38,723/- along with interest was outstanding against the appellant. Even after written reminder, he was not depositing the same. Prior to 31.3.2003, the appellant acknowledged the debt from time to time. Therefore, prayed that a decree of Rs.38,723/- along with interest be passed against the appellant. After leave being granted to defend the matter, written statement was submitted by the appellant to the effect that against loan of Rs.20,000.00, defendant deposited an amount of Rs.21,801/- and the Bank is wrongly demanding Rs.30,723/-. The suit is time barred. Just to bring the suit in limitation, acknowledgment letters have been fabricated. Forged signatures have been made on the letters. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent examined Mahendra Kumar Jain (PW-1) and appellant defendant examined Indra Mal himself (DW-1). After hearing both the parties, learned trial court vide judgment dated 28.4.2010 passed the decree in favour of respondent Bank and against the appellant, as stated herein above.