JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. - Appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-4-2019 passed by 1st Addl. Judge to the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 649-B/2012 whereby and whereunder, he partly decreed the suit of the appellant.

2. This is admitted by respondent that he had taken loan of Rs. 15,000/- on 26-3-2009 at the rate of 10% per annum in presence of Devdhar Sahu from appellant, appellant had taken his signature on blank promissory note without affixing receipt ticket, he had given him notice dated 17-3-2011 through his advocate which was not replied by him.

3. In brief the appellant's case is that he is money lender. On 26-3-2009 respondent had taken loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him at the interest rate of 2% per month and executed a promissory note. Thereafter, he did not repay him the loan amount as well as interest.

4. In brief the respondent's case is that except the admitted facts other facts of plaint are denied by him. He never signed on receipt ticket of the promissory note. His signature on receipt ticket is forged. He has already repaid the appellant loan amount Rs. 15,000/- along with interest in front of Devdhar Sahu.

5. Trial Court by impugned judgment and decree partly allowed the suit of appellant. Being aggrieved he preferred this regular appeal.

6. In brief, the case of appellant regarding instant appeal is that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective.

7. Point for determination :-

There are following points for determination in the case in hand-

(1) Whether respondent had obtained loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the appellant on 26-3-2009 along with 2% monthly interest and executed a promissory note ?

(2) Whether appellant had not complied with the provision of Clause (a) and Clasue (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of CG Money Lenders Act, 1934 (in short 'Act of 1934') ? If yes, then effect.

(3) Whether appellant is entitled to get loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 5,100/- as interest, Rs. 400/- towards notice expense, total Rs. 1,55,500/- from respondent ?

(4) Relief and costs. Point for determination No. (1)- Finding with reasons :-

8. The Trial Court has not framed issue regarding this point whether respondent had executed the promissory note, though it ought to have been done by the Trial Court. The evidence available on record shows that the appellant and the respondents have adduced evidence regarding this point. The evidence available on record is sufficient to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment. Non-framing of additional issue regarding this point does not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. Thus, looking to the provisions Order 41 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in brevity 'the CPC'), this Court finds that it may pronounce the judgment in this appeal.

9. P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Sharma says in para 4 and 10 of his statement given on oath that on 26-3-2009 respondent had taken loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him along with 2% monthly interest and executed a promissory note. Portion 'B to B' of Ex. P-2 bears signature of respondent.

10. D.W. 1 Nirmal Das Manikpuri says in para 4 of his statement given on oath that he had never taken loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the appellant. The appellant filled amount, rate of interest in the blank promissory note, prepared his forged signature on receipt ticket of it.

11. D.W. 2 Devdhar Prasad Sahu, in whose presence allegedly Rs. 1,50,000/- had been given to respondent, says in para 8 of his statement given on oath that when appellant had given Rs. 15,000/- to respondent, at that time he had many signed blank promissory notes without receipt tickets.

12. D.W. 3 Private handwriting expert Smt. Bhavna Mishra says in para 1 and 2 of her statement given on oath that she has 7 years experience of working as independent handwriting expert. She had given the report after examination of documents.

13. As per the report Ex. D-1