Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908}--O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118---Suit for recovery of money on basis of pro note---Suit was decreed by Trial Court---Decree was challenged---Plaintiff had stated that defendant was closely known to plaintiff and used to borrow money from him for use in his business, when plaintiff demanded back his money defendant refused---Matter was referred to Punchayat which decided that defendant was liable to pay amount in dispute at the rate of 2 per cent per month---Defendant, in pursuance of the settlement had executed pro note in question but later on he declined to make any payment---Stance of defendant, in the written statement was that he had never borrowed any money from plaintiff and that his signatures on the pro note and receipt were obtained by the head of Punchayat by misrepresentation and fraud---Contention was that execution of pro note was not formally proved in accordance with law as its scribe was not produced---Validity---When the execution of pro note was admitted, it was not required to be formally proved---Promissory note, execution of which had fully been proved, carried presumption under S.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that it was with consideration---Plaintiff had proved that defendant had received disputed amount from him and was liable to pay that amount---Head of Punchayat had no motive to have got the pro note executed from defendant by misrepresentation and fraud and that too for the benefit of another person---Defence version of defendant neither appealed to common sense nor was proved by him at trial---No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out---Appeal was dismissed by High Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908}- ----O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery of money on basis of pro note---Trial Court decreed, the suit---Contention was that in view of the affidavit in which plaintiffs own witness had admitted the version of defendant, suit could not have been decreed ---Validity ---Plaintiffs witness had fully supported the plaints case during his examination-in-chief and he vehemently denied the suggestion that defendant…

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