GANESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. BECHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against a decree of the Small Cause-Court Judge. The first ground sets forth that the suit is based on an alleged promissory note which contains no promise to pay or anything else which would constitute it a pro-note.

(2.) There is nothing whatever in the reoord to support the allegations in this ground. The suit was not based on an alleged promissory note. Learned Counsel examined the plaint with the desire to prove his allegation, but the plaint does not support the allegation; on the contrary the plaint sets forth in para. 2 that according to the desire of the defendant the plaintiff paid the defendant, Rs. 500, and the defendant signed a stamped paper, and the plaint as amended states that this paper was to be used as a memorandum of the transaction, and further the plaint sets forth that the defendant orally said that he would get the money from his house and pay it back to the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaint therefore was based not on any promissory note or any suggestion of a promissory note, but on an oral promise to pay, and on a document which was a memorandum or stamped receipt for the payment of Rs. 500, by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff is a moneylender and on proof that the plaintiff lent Rs. 500 to the defendant it would be open to the Court below to come to the conclusion that the circumstances gave rise to an implied promise by the defendant to repay the money which was lent. That apparently is what the lower Court has done.