IMPORTANT POINT
Where there is a material alteration in a promissory note, person seeking enforcement thereof must explain that it was made with consent of the parties or in order to effectuate their common intention.

Harbans Lal, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 1.3.07 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Mansa whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/decree dated 15.12.06 vide which the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mansa, had dismissed the suit.

2. The factual basic terrafirma with brevity is that on 16.5.96, the defendant borrowered a sum of Rs. 5,80,000 from the plaintiff with the promise to repay the same on demand together with interest at the rate of Rs. 1,56% per month. In consideration thereof, he executed the pronote and receipt of even date in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant did not return this amount along with interest despite repeated requests. In answer to this claim, the defendant has inter alia pleaded that he is the owner of Bagi Filling Station, Fatta Maloka. In the year 1987-1988, he was doing LLB and he appointed the plaintiff as Manager of this Filling Station. After doing LLB and he appointed the plaintiff as Manager of this Filling Station. The plaintiff got registered an FIR bearing No. 36 dated 6.6.1997, Police Station Jhunir against the defendant who was kidnapped by the plaintiff with the help of some other persons and was kept in illegal custody and was threatened with dire consequences and when he was in illegal custody, his signatures were obtained on some blank pronote and receipt forms. The defendant got registered an FIR No. 69 dated 17.8.97, Police Station Sadar, Mansa against the plaintiff, whereafter the matter was compromised and Rapat No. 33 dated 18.4.98 was recorded, wherein the plaintiff admitted that nothing was due towards the defendant except an amount of Rs. 7,55,000. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the defendant has made all the payments to the plaintiff. He has also got recorded his statement with regards to the same on 7.6.99, 8.6.99 and 9.6.99 but the plaintiff with mala fide intention has not returned the blank papers pronote and receipt. The plaintiff prepared the document in question in connivance with the witnesses who are related to him, whereas Amrik Singh scribe and Sarban Singh witnesses were not at good terms with the defendant. The plaintiff was not in a position to lend a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. There being material alterations and additions in the pronote, the same cannot be read into an evidence. Lastly, it has been prayed that the alleged pronote and receipt being forged and fabricated documents, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the recovery of amount as prayed for? —OPP

(ii) Whether the Civil Court has

no jurisdiction to try the

suit? —OPD

(iii) Relief.”

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiff went up in appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied, he has filed this regular second appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection.

5. Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate representing the appellant urged with great eloquence that both the Courts below have dismissed the suit merely on the ground that once the appellant and the respondent have entered into compromise in the year 1998, nothing remained due from the respondent to the appellant, though the appellant has proved the due execution of the disputed pronote and receipt. More so, the said loan was taken by the respondent in his personal capacity on 16.5.1996. There was no dispute between the parties till 23.8.1996. All the disputes had arisen after 30.8.1996. In the compromise, it was decided that the respondent will pay a sum of Rs.7,55,000 to the appellant. The