Delhi District Court
Sh.Daya Kishan vs Sh.Shishupal on 10 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. R. KIRAN NATH, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH) DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI
C.S No. 430/2012
In the matter of :
Sh.Daya Kishan,
S/o Latge Ram Lal,
R/o VPO Jaunti,
Delhi - 110081. .... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh.Shishupal
S/o Sh.Indraj,
R/o VPO Jaunti,
Delhi - 110081. ..... Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.11.2012
Date when arguments were heard : 10.03.2014
Date of judgment : 10.03.2014
Suit for Recovery of Rs.11,16,500/-
JUDGMENT :-
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.11,16,500/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff and defendant are known to each other and residing in the same locality. On the asking of the defendant, plaintiff gave a loan of Rs.7.25 lacs in cash on 22.11.2009 at the interest rate of 18% per annum, for which the defendant agreed. Defendant executed a promissory note cum receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses. It is the Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 1/8 grievance of the plaintiff that though, he asked the defendant to return the said amount but the defendant avoided with malafide and dishonest intention. He then sent a legal notice dated 15.03.2012 but even then not even a single penny was returned.
3. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of Rs.11,16,500/- (Rs.7.25,000/- as principal amount + Rs. 3,91,500/- as interest) in his favour and against the defendant together with costs and interest @ 18% per annum.
4. The defendant has taken lackadaisical stand in his written statement. He has admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.12,25,000/- i.e. Rs.7,25,000/- from the plaintiff and another sum of Rs.5 lacs was actually given by one Jagjit Singh through the plaintiff. It is his case that he had not signed any pronote and same was forged and fabricated. It is stated that he had only signed a blank promissory note and date and also the interest rate has been filled up later on by the plaintiff himself. It is further his case that he had returned the entire amount i.e. Rs. 7,25,000/- to the plaintiff and Rs.5 lacs to Jagjit Singh (through plaintiff) on the same day. However, the plaintiff had not returned the promissory note of Rs.7.25 lacs but had thereafter, sent the demand notice and then filed this suit.
5. In his replication, the plaintiff has reiterated his case as contained in the plaint and denied the averments made by the defendant in the written statement.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the promissory note is forged and fabricated as alleged Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 2/8 by the defendant in the WS, if so, then its effect? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as prayed? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, then at what rate and for what period? OPP.
4. Relief.
7. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of his case. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and adduced his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/1. He deposed on the lines of the stand taken by him in the plaint. He has proved the promissory note and receipt executed by the defendant as Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively. The legal notice dated 15.03.2012 and its postal receipt are exhibited as Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. Reply dated 13.04.2012 is Ex.PW1/E.
8. PW2 is Sh.Surender Kumar Vats, son of the plaintiff, who adduced his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 and deposed that said amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was given to defendant in his presence for which defendant executed a promissory note and he has witnessed the same.
9. On the other hand, defendant appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and deposed on the lines of the stand taken by him in the written statement. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.DW1/A.
10. DW2 is Sh.Sanjay who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW2/A and deposed that he had not signed the promissory note as witness no.1.
Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 3/811. I have heard the Ld. counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case record. Thereafter, my opinion on the issues framed is as under :-
12. ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2:-
(1) Whether the promissory note is forged and fabricated as alleged by the defendant in the WS, if so, then its effect? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as prayed? OPP.
The onus to prove issue no.1 was on the defendant and onus to prove issue no.2 was on the plaintiff. In his written statement defendant had taken a stand that the pronote was a forged and fabricated document. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant had signed the pronote Ex.PW1/A when the loan of Rs.7.25 lacs was given to him and had also signed the receipt Ex.PW1/B. It is the stand of the defendant in the written statement that actually he had taken a loan of Rs.12,25,000/- i.e. Rs.7,25,000/- from the plaintiff but remaining Rs.5 lacs was given by one Jagjit Singh through the plaintiff. In para no.9 of the written statement he has stated that plaintiff had got his signature on the blank promissory note i.e. without date of execution of the promissory note. He, however, admits that amount of Rs.7.25 lacs was mentioned in the said promissory note. It is his case that no interest was agreed upon by the plaintiff or Jagjit Singh on the said amount as it was friendly short term help.
Ex.PW1/C is the legal demand notice dated 15.03.2012 by the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant, mentioning the loan of Rs.7.25 lacs given to him in November 2009 @ 18% interest per annum Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 4/8 repayable on or before 21.11.2012 and of the defendant having executed a promissory note and receipt in lieu thereof. In response thereto, the defendant had sent a reply through his counsel, copy of which is Ex.PW1/E, in which he has stated that he had repaid the entire amount of Rs.7.25 lacs to the plaintiff and that nothing was due and he had asked the plaintiff to return the promissory note but the plaintiff avoided and was now misusing it. He had written a complaint to the police in respect of the forgery and fabrication on the said promissory note by the plaintiff. The defendant made this complaint in the police station vide DD Entry No.39B dated 17.01.2013 i.e. after this suit had been filed in the court.
From these facts itself, one thing that emerges is that defendant does admit having signed promissory note for the value of Rs. 7.25 lacs. His only contention is that it was blank without signature; date and interest having been filled in later on by the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff had forged and fabricated this document. Ex.PW1/A is the promissory note and Ex.PW1/B is the receipt - both being printed on one page. The defendant had admitted his signature on the same. He also admits that a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- was written on the same when he signed it. A perusal of this document shows that date on the same has been written in the same flow as the signature. The same pen seems to have been used to fill in the rest of the details also. The interest seems to have been filled-in in the same flow. Rather, the defendant in his complaint states that the plaintiff had filled in all the particulars in the said promissory note-cum-receipt and he had only filled in the amount and sign and that he even did not filled in the date. That means, the particulars were all filled in at the time of execution of document by the defendant. The defendant does not deny having sign the said promissory note and receipt. At the outset, it is noted that it is Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 5/8 settled law that if a person signs a blank document, he does so on his own peril and risk. It is presumed that the person signing the said document knew the consequences and was ready to face the the same. I, thus, feel that it cannot be held that the said document is forged and fabricated. The said demand notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15th March 2012 and replied by the defendant on 13-04-12. However, he makes a complaint to the police about forgery after eight months i.e. on 17.01.2013.
There is another aspect i.e. defendant had taken a stand that plaintiff had not returned the pronote and receipt when he made payment in cash to him. If that was so, it was expected of any prudent man to have atleast taken in writing from the plaintiff for having received back the loan amount and promising to return the document i.e. pronote later on i.e. when admittedly the plaintiff got the pronote signed at the time of giving the loan in cash to the defendant, the defendant was expected to be prudent enough to atleast take a receipt from the plaintiff when he (defendant) returned the same in cash and plaintiff did not return the promissory note to him.
I, thus, hold that the promissory note Ex.PW1/A filed by the plaintiff was not forged and fabricated and was infact so executed by the defendant. Since, the promissory note is with the plaintiff and defendant has not been able to prove that he had returned the said money to the plaintiff, I hold that promissory note is not forged and fabricated and defendant is liable to pay loan of Rs.7.25 lacs to the plaintiff.
13. ISSUE NO.3 :-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, then at what rate and for what period? OPP.Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 6/8
As per the promissory note Ex.PW1/A defendant had taken the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- at the interest rate of 1.5% per month which is 18% per annum. Since, the parties have agreed to the said interest at which the loan was given, the same is allowed. Specially, in view of the frivolous defence of the defendant whereby defendant had tried to avoid repayment to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is, thus, allowed interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.7.25 lacs w.e.f. filing of the suit till its realization and it is ordered accordingly.
14. ISSUE NO.4 RELIEF In view of the discussions as above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 11,16,500/- alongwith costs and interest pendentelite and future @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.7.25 lacs from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on day of 10th March, 2014 (R.KIRAN NATH) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI/ 10.03.2014. ar Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 7/8 CS No. 430/12 Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal 10.03.2014 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 11,16,500/- alongwith costs and interest pendentelite and future @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.7.25 lacs from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(R.KIRAN NATH) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI/ 10.03.2014. ar Daya Kishan Vs. Shishu Pal Page 8/8