» y: ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATUEE :CHHATTISGAKH:BILASPUR FIRST APPEAL N0 : 2008 APPELIANT DEFENDANT RESPONDENT PIAINTIFF Tejram Sahu aged 40 yrs, s/o Shri Banihar Sahu r/o Gram-Borgahan, Tah-Gunderdehi Distt- Durg CG t^Rishi Kumar Devangan aged 37 yrs, s/o Shri Somnath Devangan r/o : Gram-Arjunda Tah-Gunderdehi ; Durg CG ^' FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 Hon'bte Shri Justsce Prashant Kumar Mlshra F.A.Ao. TIoj Tnira*' 1^'Is^gSS ^SSSS U^^^sss •9 •^S-S.fS^^-ff ;=i=.= &r=, JUDGMENT Postfor ^o-IQ-2010. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge c.1 1K3H OF AT <SBnfs|^ |"^Kti APPELLANT RESPONDENT F.A. No. 77 ? 2008 Ti Versys tjfa?^ s:3?'Tii f^fSi%i t^^ai'^i Shri for the Shri Kshitij Sharma, counsei for the resporrient. 96 OF THE OF pl <t1 "s?^S^(^S¥il (^0.10.28Wi This W of C.P.C. has by ifte ttie and by th.9 Court ht"i to the of Rs. 80,000/- @ 6% per ttis Qf of the suit i.e. 12-05-2(X , to ttie pSaintiff'resps-ndent. (2) Ths in short, is that an 18-07-2CX}5 (Ex.P'1) the for of 0.53 No. 472.12 -at Borgahan, Dlstrict - Durg and in to ttis said fte pialnfiff Rs.SO.CUOi'- to ttie defendant. Thls amount was through ta?o cheques of R5.43,0(K)f'- each. The saie-deed was to be in 18-07-2005 to 1S-02-20 fai'-ng whteh the amount shal! be raftinded te frse ptaintiff interest. ft was by the notic-e 1C--02-20CB the to perfomi th& confract,,ftus friing of tt>e present suit for Detfomi-ancs and In ttie altematlve ieeldng of frse amount of Rs.80,(XK},'-. - ^ (3) Case of the was of denial. A.ccording to the defenuant he had taken io-an of Rs.5,SXK)/- from the and for ttiis transaction ttie piaintlff taken his signatures in biank sternp paper whfch has bsen to the sutgect agreement, Thus te ttiat the agreement is concocted. He ftirther to recelvef ^ (4) The hiai C-ourt the pi-ainWs pr-ayer for of the contract, however prayerfor rstund has granted. (5) Shri for the has argued that from the of the witnesses st has proved Ex.P/1 Is a concocted document arsd ftse piainWs is not credib'e. He wouid that the evidence put by <he is and vague -and he has to the of proof of Rs.80,OOQ/-. the Ex.P?1 is not for of but as security for ioan, th® tri-al C-ourt the suit In (6) Per eontra, Shri Kshttij -Shamra. ieamed counsei for respondent "/ouid that the of of Rs.5,000/- and ttie executlon of Ex,P,?7 of the 2003, therefore, the put in ttie wrltten statement VTS-a-vls P,?1 Is not at all ttie has fulty proved his rsgardlng payment of Rs.80,OOC"-. He would ftaEttier submit that ttie his in 5fte document Ex.P/1, fr'e i'es on to disprove the has not ftsity by hlm. He has p!aced rellance on B.R. Muiani vs. Dr. .4.8. In 1993 SC 131B and vs. in AIR i397 SC 2702. 1(7) The Court has the Ex.P/1 not for of ttis subjsct iand but was exscuted by way of sscurity. The respondsnt has ^ not flted any cross appeai or any cross objection, thus ttie only question whfeh to S» addressed in this appeal is about the findm regaruing payment of Rs.8Q,C'OC"- by the plalnliff to uie defendant (8) The triai Court has discussed the evidence in deta'il and after rsfsfTtng to the by the about his sisnafrure in Ex.P^1 his act of ttie ftie plalntiff h.as held of Rs.8Q,CKK}/-. in response to the tegal noSce sant by fte the defendant has not sent a rsply. Ex.P/5 irs a reply sent by his wife in which it is steted ttiat her ss not mentaliy fit and Is undergQJng freatment. The Court has thus found ths has not to the notie-e. (9) The by the have the and the is in the of advancing to the None of the wiSnesses examlned by the DW/2 Thethwar are in concemod of ttie subject Iransaction. DW,?2 Thethwar h-as he and R'V/2 Toman Lal ttis Ex.P/1, he has Tsjram S-ahu arri fte and ttis h-ad put on Ex.P/1. Duun Thettiwar not his but that he is not in the of sn his on any reauing same and that hs has put his signaiure on Ex.P;1 after reading cotit^n^s ^i^TSoT. (10) I" Ex.P/1 it Is ftiat the has paiu Rs.SOflW- two bearing No. 719178 and 719179 of Rs.40,(KKS/- to the defenuant. DW,M, Tqram Sahu in 9 of his that he received two cheques of Rs.40,OCrO/- sach and that he had signed on the reveree of the in ttis Banlc. Though friis to < ^ the but he to and his on the in of of ttie amount. He did not Uie reDQrt of Ifte and to and his bul he tl!l of nofc-e by ttie Ex.P/2 on 1C--02-2Q06 and in of ttie he did not te tt. !n ths Ex.P/5 by ft is the has not handed over any cheque to the defendant whereas the deferidant himse'f admits the fact of putting his signaturss on ffie reveree sjite of tt*® c-hsques. Thus, the by ttie is "ot credlbte from fte statement of the Dteintiffs wtoiesses and the rontente of ttie aareement on whfch the defendant his signature, it appears highiy probabie fr'at the were over to the anti he receivad 'ths ^m^^.int uftCiQr 11^0 di^cu^. (11) The by the trial C-ourt regarding payment of Rs.80.000/- fc'y the to the Is on of and the the not to be perverse. (12) Consequently rt is ttie frial C-ourt has not •!!agality a decree In favour of ttie pSaintiff and ttse of Rs.&3,CKX)/- @ 6% psr ttie of of the suit. (13) This "o substence, it deser/es to bs, is hereby dlsmissed. (14) No order as to . A bs drawn-up accordingiy. ^.^' w ...i -.