Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.The first defendant would further contend that periodically every month, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid in instalment and the entire loan amount has been settled by him in December, 1994, and on the same terms and conditions, the amount was borrowed by him in December, 1994, and the entire loan amount was paid back at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month, by October, 1995, and in spite of full settlement, the signed blank papers have not been returned by the plaintiff and the first defendant trusting the integrity of the plaintiff, did not insist for return of the said signed blank papers and also did not imagine that the plaintiff in the suit, will misuse the same.

6.The first defendant would further state that the suit documents 3 and 4 dated 20.1.1997 and 16.1.2000 respectively, have been fabricated by the plaintiff to bring the loan agreement dated 29.1.1994, to life and the said documents have been created by using the signed blank papers executed by the first defendant, and also challenged the contents of the said documents.

7.The first defendant would further contend that he has never given the letters dated 20.1.1997 and 16.1.2000, to the plaintiff acknowledging the debt or liability, and reiterated his stand that two blank sheets signed by him, have been used for creating the said documents and it is nothing but a misuse.

8.It is further stated by the first defendant, that admittedly, no pre-suit notice has been issued and in the event of issuance of such a notice, he would have been in a position to bring on record, the above said facts and however, the plaintiff has deliberately avoided sending the pre-suit notice and he has also sent a reply notice dated 20.12.2002, and in respect of the criminal prosecution lodged by the plaintiff in C.C.No.4153 of 2003, on the file of the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, he has filed Crl.O.P.No.45077 of 2003, on the file of this Court, and it was allowed and the Calender Case proceedings were quashed and pendency of the said Criminal Original Petition, the plaintiff as respondent therein, filed his counter statement stating that he is in possession of signed blank papers executed by the first defendant.

19(iii) When the attention of P.W.1 was drawn to Ex.P7, he would state that the signature of the first defendant is found far below the contents of the letter and he did not ask the first defendant as to why he signed far below the contents of the letter. P.W.1 would admit that he is doing money lending business, which is his ancestral business, and is maintaining proper receipts for the loan lent and repaid, and also filed several cases for default in payment of loans and denied the suggestion that Exs.P7 and P8 were created; the first defendant had paid the entire loan amount borrowed from him, and that he is misusing the blank papers signed by him, to claim money by way of this suit. It has been further deposed by P.W.1 that the deeds of guarantee pertaining to the defendants 2 and 3, alone were filed as Exs.P3 and P4 respectively.