Delhi District Court
Sh. Syed Manzoor Ahmed vs Sh. Ram Pal Singh on 5 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 1283/06
Case ID No.
Sh. Syed Manzoor Ahmed,
S/o Sh. Syed Gaffar Hussain,
R/o RZH30, Gali No. 10,
Sitapuri, PartII,
New Delhi. .... Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh. Ram Pal Singh,
S/o Sh. Narottam Singh,
R/o A196, Bindapur,
JJ Colony, New Delhi - 110059. .... Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,09,800/.
Date of Institution : 12.10.2006
Date of reserving Judgment : 23.01.2014
Date of pronouncement : 05.02.2014
Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
Vide this Judgment I shall dispose off the suit of the plaintiffs filed for recovery of Rs.1,09,800/ with costs and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. Facts stated in the plaint are as follows: The defendant who had cordial relations with the plaintiff received a loan of Rs.90,000/ from the plaintiff on interest at the rate 12% per annum for a period of one year. The defendant executed a loan deed cum promissory note dated 08.11.2004 in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the loan within one year or demand on the plaintiff. After expiry of one year, the plaintiff demanded the loan and interest thereon; however, the defendant avoided to repay the same. A legal notice dated 11.09.2006 was also not responded to. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit.
3. In the written statement, the defendant raised the following preliminary objections: i. The plaintiff has concealed material facts;
ii. The plaintiff has no cause of action in his favour; Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 2 of 10 iii. The suit has been filed to harass the defendant as the plaintiff was inducted a tenant by the defendant in one shop at initial rent of Rs.900/ per month excluding electricity and water charges which was later enhanced to Rs.1,100/ per month. The plaintiff is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.50,600/ besides electricity and water charges. A legal notice dated 27.05.2006 was also sent to the plaintiff demanding the said arrears and terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff. The notice was duly replied to; but raising frivolous ground. Thereafter the defendant filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which was pending disposal. The plaintiff had filed a petition u/s. 45 of the said Act. The suit is a counter blast to the eviction notice and eviction petition of the defendant.
iv. The present suit has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated loan document dated 08.11.2004 which the defendant has never signed. The forgery can be seen by merely looking at the loan deed cum promissory note and the receipt as the signatures on the documents alleged to be of defendant are apparently forged.
Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 3 of 10
4. On merits, the defendant has stated that his signatures on the alleged loan deed cum promissory note and receipts have been forged for harassing him and to grab his property and in this regard, complaints dated 17.07.2006 and 01.09.2006 have already been made to the police. In addition thereto, the averments of the plaint were denied.
5. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied the allegations made in the written statement; however, the pendency of the proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act was not denied or disputed. On the pleadings of the party, the Court framed the issues on 31.05.2007 which were later reframed in terms of an additional issue on 01.02.2008. The issues raised for consideration of this Court are as follows:
i. Whether the plaintiff has concealed some material facts from the court, if so, its effect? OPD. ii. Whether present suit is based on forged and fabricated documents dated 8.11.2004? OPD. iii. Whether plaintiff entitled for the recovery of amount, as prayed for? If so, at what rate of interest, if any Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 4 of 10 and for which period? OPP.
iv. Relief.
6. The plaintiff was then called upon to lead his evidence. He got himself examined as PW1 reiterating in his evidence by way of affidavit most of the averments as made in the plaint. The PW1 relied upon the following documents:
i. Receipt dated 08.11.2004 signed by the defendant acknowledging receiving Rs.90,000/ as Ex. PW1/1. ii. Loan deed cum promissory note as Ex. PW1/2. iii. Legal notice dated 11.09.2006 as Ex. PW1/3. iv. Postal receipt as Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/6 and returned envelope as Ex. PW1/7.
7. Sh. Rajender Prasad, one of the witnesses to the receipt dated 08.11.2004 and the loan deed cum promissory note dated 08.11.2004 was examined as PW2. In his evidence by way of affidavit, the said PW2 has supported the case of plaintiff and identified his signatures on the said two documents.
Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 5 of 10
8. Both the said witnesses were crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
9. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Deepak Jain, the handwriting and finger print expert, who in his examination in chief proved his report Ex. PW3/1 wherein he has opined that the signatures on the aforesaid receipt and the loan deed cum promissory note were of the person writing the specimen signatures i.e. the defendant. Despite been given an opportunity the defendant has neither crossexamined this witness nor has led any evidence in defence.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the case file. My issuewise findings are as follows :
11. ISSUE NO. 1.
Whether the plaintiff has concealed some material facts from the court, if so, its effect? OPD.
The defendant has raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court however, in support Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 6 of 10 of the said contention, the defendant has not brought on record any material from which it can be deduced that the plaintiff has concealed any fact which is significant to be brought before the court and which could have been necessary for deciding the dispute. The fact of the defendant filing an eviction petition against the plaintiff is not necessary and significant for deciding the present dispute and the non disclosure of that fact cannot be stated to be a concealment on the part of the plaintiff of a material fact.
12. ISSUE NO. 2.
Whether present suit is based on forged and fabricated documents dated 8.11.2004? OPD.
The defendant has merely stated in the defence that the promissory note and the receipt i.e. Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/1 are forged and fabricated documents and he has never signed the said documents. In support of the said contention, no material has been brought on record by the defendant. Despite been given an opportunity, the defendant has chosen not to lead any evidence to prove the said contention. Accordingly, issue stands decided against the defendant. Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 7 of 10
13. ISSUE NO. 3.
Whether plaintiff entitled for the recovery of amount, as prayed for? If so, at what rate of interest, if any and for which period? OPP.
The plaintiff in addition to producing the aforesaid loan deed cum promissory note, Ex. PW1/2 and the receipt Ex. PW1/1 in original on record, has also sworn on oath the execution of the said documents by the defendant. He has got examined one of the witnesses to the said document Sh. Rajender Prasad as PW2 in support of the proof of the execution of the said documents. Apart from that, in order to show that the signatures of the defendant on the said documents are indeed his, the plaintiff has got the said disputed signatures of the defendant compared with his admitted signatures through the handwriting expert Sh. Deepak Jain, the PW3. Sh. Jain in his report Ex. PW3/1 has given an opinion that the disputed signatures on the Ex. PW1/1 and the specimen signatures on the vakalatnama and the written statement of the defendant are of the same person. Even otherwise, a perusal of the signatures disputed and admitted, with naked eye does not raise any suspicion to the fact of these having been put by the same person. Moreover, for the reasons best known to the Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 8 of 10 defendant, he after filing his written statement and contesting the suit for some time has chosen thereafter not to participate in the proceedings and lead the defence evidence. This fact further leads this court to infer that the defendant has no defence to the suit.
14. The documents have been executed on 8.11.2004 on which date the loan was reportedly given to the defendant while the suit has been filed on 12.10.2006 i.e. within the period of limitation. The plaintiff has been able to establish his case of advancing the loan to the defendant and the defendant not repaying the same while the defendant has not brought any material on record to dispute the case of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is otherwise also maintainable in law. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount as prayed for. Issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff.
15. RELIEF.
In light of the aforesaid discussion and decision of the issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Plaintiff is held entitled to the recovery of the principal loan amount of Rs. 90,000/. He has claimed the interest on the said amount @ 12% per annum as per the loan deed Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 9 of 10 cum promissory note dated 8.11.2004. In the opinion of the court, the said rate of interest is exorbitant. In order to meet the ends of justice, in the opinion of the court, the pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the said amount shall suffice. Plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court (Jitendra Pratap Singh)
on 05.02.2014 Civil Judge09, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
05.02.2014
This Judgment consists of 10 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.
Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 10 of 10 Suit No. 1283/06 05.02.2014 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date the suit of the plaintiff is decreed along with costs of the suit. Any application on behalf of either of the parties not disposed off till date by the court are hereby dismissed for being not pressed for. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(Jitendra Pratap Singh) CJ09/C/DELHI/05.02.2014 Suit No. 1283/06 Page No. 11 of 10