Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant, all the allegations made in the plaint were denied. As per defence of the defendant, as made out in the written statement, husband of plaintiff had become a sleeping partner in business of the defendant and had invested some amount on profit and loss basis in the said business of the defendant. It was further claimed that husband of plaintiff had also stood as guarantor/co-borrower in loan transactions wherein the defendant had taken loan/over draft limit from the bank in his firm's account. It was claimed that as defendant had failed to repay the bank, the bank had issued notices to defendant and husband of plaintiff, which led to filing of present false and frivolous suit against the defendant. Defendant specifically denied the allegation of having received any loan from the plaintiff or her husband and also denied having received any notice or having sent any reply to the same. It was claimed that no amount was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Dismissal of the suit was prayed.

9 PW-2 Maninder Singh Bawa also filed his evidence by way of affidavit which as proved as Ex. PW- 2/A. In the affidavit, the witness had reiterated facts as mentioned in the plaint.

9-A During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant, he claimed that he was working in Punjab & Sind Bank and had stood guarantee for the loan taken by defendant from the bank. It was claimed that as it was not required, he himself had not taken any permission from his bank for standing guarantee. He claimed that he had even not given any information to the bank about his having stood guarantee for the loan. Witness admitted that suit for repayment of the said loan had been decreed against him alongwith the defendant, but he had not intimated his bank about the decree against him. He denied the suggestion that he had neither informed nor taken permission from his bank as he was sleeping partner in the firm of the defendant. As per this witness, he first stood guarantee for defendant in March/April, 2001 and thereafter had also executed guarantee for the defendant in 2002 on enhancement of the loan amount. It was claimed that the loan was enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- in 2002 on his guarantee. He denied the suggestion that defendant was not in financial crises or had never asked him for loan. He further denied the suggestion that he had not made any payment to the defendant as loan. He further denied the suggestion that he used to draw profit from the firm of defendant in cash as a sleeping partner. It was claimed that cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- and for Rs.3,500/- had been given in the name of Shiv Enterprises. He denied the suggestion the said cheques were given in the name of the firm as he was a sleeping partner in the firm. To a question as to why the loan was given in amounts like Rs.62,086/- from 5.4.01 to 1.5.01 instead of a round figure, the witness stated that it was the total amount taken by defendant during that period. He admitted that the amount shown in Ex. PW-1/1 was titled as second and third tour and volunteered that the defendant had stated that he had wanted the money for business tour. He further claimed that they had given money to the defendant as and when he asked for it. He denied the suggestion that the account given by defendant was for expenses met by him on tour or that the said account was taken by him from the defendant as he himself was a sleeping partner in the firm. He denied the suggestion that defendant had not taken loan from them for his personal use or that the defendant was not in any financial crises or had not asked any loan from them as he was already having credit limit from the bank. Witness admitted that defendant used to go out on tour for doing their business of scooter parts. He denied the suggestion of having manipulated the entries Ex. PW-1/1 after the suit for repayment of money by the bank was decreed against him. He denied the suggestion that he used to take account from the defendant on his return from the tour as he himself was a partner in the firm. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/1 was part of the accounts. He further denied the suggestion that he himself had retained the accounts books of the defendant or had failed to deliver the account books despite demand. He denied the suggestion that defendant was not liable to pay any amount to them. He further denied the suggestion that he had given guarantee on enhancement of the loan amount in the year 2002 for the defendant as he himself was business partner of the defendant. Witness admitted that he had not verified the credentials of defendant before standing as his guarantor. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

14 On basis of pleadings of parties and the evidence led on record, as has been mentioned herein- above, my findings on issues framed are as under:-

ISSUE No.1 The first issue framed was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to the suit amount as claimed. It was for the plaintiff to prove if she was entitled to suit amount as claimed. In order to prove her claim, plaintiff has placed explicit reliance on Ex. PW-1/1 i.e. diary entry allegedly in handwriting of defendant. Admittedly, during course of evidence led on record, defendant has nowhere disowned the entries in Ex. PW- 1/1. Not even a suggestion has been given to any of the witnesses that entries thereof were not in handwriting of defendant. All that had been suggested by defendant to PW-1 during course of her cross examination was that defendant had not taken any money from plaintiff as reflected in Ex. PW-1/1 and that whatever money was taken by defendant was for business purposes. It had further been suggested to PW-2 that Ex. PW-1/1 was part of account of partnership business in which PW-2 was a sleeping partner and that it reflected expenses made by defendant on tour, and had been so taken by PW-2 being sleeping partner of the business.

Husband of plaintiff i.e. PW-2 is a Bank employee. He had denied the suggestion that he was a sleeping partner in firm of the defendant. However, during course of his cross examination, he had admitted that he had stood guarantor for defendant. He admitted that he had hidden the fact from the bank as he had neither sought permission from the bank, nor had informed the bank in this regard. He further admitted that suit for repayment of loan instituted against him and defendant had been decreed, and that he had also not informed his Bank about the same. This conduct of the husband of plaintiff apparently shows that he had intentionally hidden all these facts from his employer bank. This, by necessary implication gives credence to claim of defendant that he was a sleeping partner in firm of the defendant as he could not have come out in open being a bank employee.