JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:---Heard the learned Counsel.

2. The plaintiff has taken out this summons for judgment in the suit filed by him for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,18,000/- allegedly advanced by him to the defendant as a friendly loan together with interest thereon at 15% p.a. amounting to Rs. 98,000/-. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is a Doctor by profession and is a social worker and a member of the Congress Party. He knew the defendant who was also a worker of the Congress Party. The defendant was carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Shivam Garments, and represented to the plaintiff that he had suffered losses in the partnership business and requested for a friendly loan for discharging his liabilities and paying of the share of his partner. The plaintiff took pity on the defendant and advanced him a friendly loan of Rs. 2,18,000/- which the defendant promised to repay with interest at 15% p.a. within a period of three years. The defendant has executed a writing styled as "Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond" dated 27th April, 1996 duly affirmed before a Notary (Mr. D.J. Khatri) admitting his liability to repay Rs. 2,18,000/- with interest at 15% p.a. Xerox copy of the writing styled as "Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond" is annexed to the plaint as Exhibit-A.

3. The defendant has resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing an affidavit in reply sworn in on 19th April, 2000. The defendant has denied that he had incurred losses in the business and has further denied of having approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,18,000/-. He has denied receipt of the loan, and has specifically denied having executed "Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond" dated 27th April, 1996, and has alleged that it was a forged and manipulated document. He has stated that he was a chief polling agent of the plaintiff, who was contesting assembly elections as a congress party candidate in the year 1996, and in connection with the work of the polling agent the defendant had signed some blank papers which the plaintiff appears to have used as a continuation sheets for fraudulently preparing "Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond" dated 27th April, 1996. In paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit, the defendant has reiterated his stand that the affidavit cum indemnity bond at Exhibit-A to the plaint was fabricated and forged document.

4. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit in rejoinder sworn on 29th April, 2002 denying the allegations of the defendant. The plaintiff has annexed to the affidavit in rejoinder two more documents, first a dissolution of the partnership between the defendant and Mr. Shelar and the second, xerox copy of a deed of partnership dated 27th April, 1996 between the plaintiff and the defendant which has been attested by the same Notary, Mr. Khatri.

5. When the summons for judgement first came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the defendant reiterated the stand that the document styled as "Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond" purportedly executed by the defendant on 27th April, 1990 was forged and fabricated. He further submitted that the second document purporting to be a deed of partnership dated 27th April, 1996 was also forged and fabricated. The learned Counsel stated that the defendant had never been to the Notary Mr. D.J. Khatri for the purpose of execution of the document and the attestation by the Notary purportingly made on 27th April, 1996 was also a fabricated attestation made in connivance with the plaintiff without the defendant being ever present before the Notary.

6. In view of the specific denial by the defendant about the execution of the documents as well as attestation by the Notary, notice was issued by this Court to Mr. D.J. Khatri to remain present in the Court along with relevant notarial registers. From what is stated in the foregoing paragraphs that the execution of the "Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond" is doubtful and the notarisation is not at all trustworthy giving rise to triable is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document