RATI RAM Vs. HARDEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 700 on the basis of a pro-note dated the 19 June 1921, alleged to have been executed by the defendant-respondent in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The defence to the suit was that the defendant never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor executed the pro-note in dispute and that the pro-note was not supported by consideration.

(3.) On the date fixed for the hearing of the suit the parties agreed to abide by the statement on oath of one Khem Chand alias Khimma. Khimma's statement was recorded by the Court. He did not make any statement on his own personal knowledge and stated that he had settled the dispute between the parties and had decided that the defendant should pay to Rati Ram the sum of Rs. 450 in nine monthly instalments of Rs. 50. He was shown the pro-note in dispute and was asked to state whether or not the pro-note in dispute was genuine. In reply to this question he stated that he could make no statement with respect to the pro-note, and that he was not prepared to arbitrate the dispute between the parties relating to the pro-note. He never stated that; he could, on his personal knowledge, say that any debt had been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant.