Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXVII, R.2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4---Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.2(5)(b) & (20)---Suit for recovery4of amount on basis of Promissory Note (pro note) signed by witnesses---Maintainability---Such document signed by defendant (its maker) contained unconditional undertaking to pay certain amount to plaintiff or to his order---Such document fulfilled all conditions prescribed by S.2(20) of Stamp Act, 1899 read with S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Such document was not a "bond" within meaning of S.2(5)(b) of Stamp Act, 1899---Mere signing of such document by witnesses would not change its nature or lose its significance as negotiable instrument within meaning of O.XXXVII, C.P.C.---Suit was maintainable on basis of such document---Principles. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 31-5-2006 the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.2,16,000 under Order XXXVII. C.P.C. According to the plaint the parties reside in the same village and have good relationship. In December, 2004 on the request of the respondent the said amount was lent to him. The receipt was acknowledged and pro note was executed on 23-12-2004 by respondent promising to repay the amount on demand. The amount was not so paid when demanded. A decree was accordingly prayed for. The respondent was duly served in the manner prescribed. He put in appearance and filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The leave was granted vide order dated 10-7-2006. A written statement was filed on 12-8-2006. The plea taken was that the respondent is an illiterate person and cannot even sign his name. He requested the appellant to assist him in the matter of obtaining N.I.C. and his thumb-impressions were obtained on some papers and later the pro note and receipt were fabricated. According to him he had not received any amount from the appellant. Following issues were framed on 20-9-2006:-- (1) Has the plaintiff no cause of action? OPD (2) Are the pro note and receipt outcome of fraud, forgery and deceit, if so, how? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,16,000 on the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492