1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil First Appeal No.66/1992 (Kodumal Versus Harimohan Bansal) Date of Judgment :: 17th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Agarwal, counsel for the appellant BY THE COURT: The defendant-appellant has preferred this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 18th December, 1991 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Civil Suit No. 47/1988, whereby the trial court has decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,430/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,440/- in the trial court against defendant-appellant under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC on the basis of Promissory Note dated 16th September, 1986 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, wherein it 2 was pleaded that defendant took a loan of Rs. 9000/- for business purpose with a condition to pay interest @ 1% per month. The pro-note was written by one Chakrapani Mittal PW-2. The defendant put his signature on the same. A receipt was also signed by defendant. The said amount was not paid, therefore, a notice dated 24th July, 1988 was also served, but payment was not made, therefore, it became necessary to file the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,000/- original amount, Rs. 2430/- towards interest and Rs. 10/- towards notice expenses; total amount of Rs. 11,440/-. The defendant filed his written statement, wherein the contents of plaint were denied and it was pleaded that no loan of Rs. 9,000/- was taken by the defendant from the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that there was business rivalry in between plaintiff and defendant and due to the same, the plaintiff was annoyed with the defendant. It was also pleaded that on 2nd August, 1987, the plaintiff came in go-down of defendant with some persons and got the signature of defendant on the blank papers forcefully. He also lodged a report with the Superintendent of Police in this regard, therefore, it was prayed that suit of plaintiff 3 be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed four issues, which are reproduced in the impugned judgment. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, the scribe PW-2 Chakrapani Mittal, the witness of the pro-note PW-3 Madan Lal and produced documentary evidence also. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 an DW-2 Murli, DW-3 Prem Chand and also produced documentary evidence. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also the pleadings and evidence available on record, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000/- original amount and Rs. 2430/- towards interest. The suit for remaining amount was dismissed. The trial court also awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that defendant did not take any loan from the plaintiff and his signatures were got on the blank papers by plaintiff on 2nd August, 1987 under pressure and in presence of some 4 'Gundas'. A complaint was also filed in this regard, a copy of which has been placed on record. It is contended that DW-1 Kodumal has specifically denied in his statement before the Court and stated that no amount of loan was taken from the plaintiff. It is, therefore, contended that from the defendant's evidence, it is clear that trial court committed an illegality in deciding the issues against the defendant and as such the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is liable to be set- aside. 4. No one is present on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC on the basis of pro-note Ex. 1 and written receipt Ex. 2, which was written by PW-2 Chakrapani Mittal and signed by defendant Kodumal. PW-1, in his statement, has specifically stated that defendant took a loan of Rs. 9,000/- for business purpose on 16th September, 1986 after executing pro-note Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2. The pro-note and receipts were written by 5 Chakrapani Mittal PW-2 in presence of two witnesses. PW-2 Chakrapani Mittal was also examined on behalf of the plaintiff, who stated in his statement that defendant took a loan of Rs. 9,000/- in his presence and Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were written by him and it bears the signature of defendant and witnesses also. One of the witness of Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 Madan Lal was also examined on behalf of the plaintiff as PW-3, who also proved his signature on Ex. 1 and Ex. 2. So far as defence of defendant is concerned, it is relevant to mention that defendant in his statement has admitted that complaint lodged by him about so-called incident dated 2nd August, 1987 has been dismissed in default. He has also admitted in his examination-in-chief that Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were written by Chakrapani Mittal PW- 2. It shows that his signatures on Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were not got under any pressure. The defendant also admitted his signature on Ex. 1 and Ex. 2, the pro-note and receipt. In these circumstances, the execution of pro-note Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 are not only proved from the evidence of plaintiff but it is also proved from the evidence of defendant. The trial court has discussed evidence of both the parties in detail and by valid reasonings has rightly 6 decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant. After examining the finding of the trial court in the light of evidence of both the parties, oral and documentary and submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that trial court has rightly decided issues no. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant and in these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 6. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK