A.S. Chandurkar, J.

This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1976 is by the original defendant who is aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court dated 20th January, 2003 whereby the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent has been decreed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating the Second Appeal are that it is the case of the respondent that he was acquainted with the appellant as they were residing in the same locality. As the appellant intended to open a new shop, he was in need of money. On the request made by the appellant, the respondent had given him an amount of Rs.30,000/-. A document dated 21st July, 1998 came to be duly executed and it was agreed that said amount would be repaid by 30th January, 1999. As the aforesaid amount was not paid, the respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs.35,400-00.

3. In the Written Statement, the appellant took the stand that though respondent was doing business, behind his shop, there was a gambling den. The respondent used to accommodate any person who lost money in gambling. As the appellant had lost Rs.3,000/- in gambling, the respondent had taken his signature on a blank stamp paper which was being used to the prejudice of the appellant. It was, therefore, denied that any amount was due and payable to the respondent.

4. After the parties led evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the contents of the document dated 21st July, 1998 at Exh.25 had not been proved. It, therefore, dismissed the suit for recovery. The appellate Court found that the appellant had admitted his signature on the said document and that the same was prepared after its contents were read over to the appellant. It, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The following substantial questions of law were framed while admitting the appeal:-

"1. Whether, was it necessary to examine the scribe in this matter particularly when document Ex.25 was in question and the execution of which is denied by the defendant?

2. Whether the defendant discharged the burden as it was the contention of the respondent that no such document was executed and signature was taken on a blank paper?"

6. Shri Sachin Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that appellate Court was not legally correct in holding the document at Exh.25 to be duly proved. The scribe of the said document, one Shri Kulkarni, had not been examined and merely on the basis of deposition of the attesting witness, the claim could not have been accepted. He submitted that there was a difference between proving the contents of a document and the truthfulness of such contents. According to him, the document at Exh.25 did not require any statutory attestation and, therefore, the deposition of the attesting witness would not substantiate the case of the respondent. In that regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Sir Mohammed Yusuf & another v. D & another [AIR 1968 Bombay 112] as well as judgment of learned Single Judge in Om Prakash Berlia & another v. Unit Trust of India & others [AIR 1983 Bombay 1]. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit.

7. Shri H. D. Dangre, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment. He, submitted that it was necessary to take into consideration the entire evidence on record for coming to the conclusion that the contents of Exh.25 had been duly proved. He referred to the provisions of Sections 61, 67, 68 and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act [for short "the said Act"] to urge that high degree of proof had been provided for supporting the case of the respondent. Even though attestation of the document was not mandatory, the deposition of the attesting witness could be led as evidence. He, therefore, submitted that non-examination of the scribe was not very relevant as the document had otherwise been duly prove