A person can be acquainted with the handwriting of a person even if he is ignorant of the language in which the document is written, if he has seen the person writing or signing the document.

This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge, Nowgong, dated 31-5-1968 passed in Money Suit No. 4 of 1968 by which he de­creed the plaintiffs' suit on a promissory note for Rs 5,500/-.

2. The plaintiffs are Afgan Nationals residing in Nowgong town and doing Money lending business. Their case was that the defendant Bhanwarilal Tatar borrowed Rs. 5000/- from them on 9-3-1965 executing a promissory note in their favour, stipulating to repay the same on demand with interest at the rate of 6 pies per rupee, per month. As the defendant did not pay any money in spite of demand they filed the suit for a decree of Rs. 5,500/- including interest at the rate of Rs. 10/- per hundred, per year.

3. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff No. 2 Phata Khan instituted the suit for and on behalf of himself and plaintiff No. 1 Ahmed Khan describing himself as an Attorney of plaintiff No. 1.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contesting the plaintiff's claim. He alleged that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the suit is not maintainable under the Assam Money Lenders Act. The defendant denied that he had executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs or that he had borrowed any money from them. According to him the alleged promissory note is a forged one,

5. Upon the pleadings the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable under the Assam Money Lenders Act:

(ii) Whether the alleged hand-note was executed by Bhanwarilal Tatar, as alleged in the plaint?

(iii) Whether the present defendant is in any way liable?

(iv) To what releief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

6. The plaintiffs examined only one witness, namely, the plaintiff No. 1 Ahmed Khan and the defendant also examined only himself.

7. On a consideration of their evi­dence the learned District Judge answered all the issues in favour of the plaintilis and accordingly he decreed the suit. Hence the defendant has preferred this appeal.

8. Mr. D. K. Sen, the learned coun­sel for the appellant challenged the decree of the learneu District Judge on three grounds which are as below:-

(i) that the plaintiff No. 2 had no legal authority to institute the suit for and on be­half of plaintiff No. 1 and as such the learn­ed District Judge should nave held that the suit is not maintainable under Rule 10 (3) of Order 1 of the C. P. C.

(ii) that the learned District Judge erred in law ill holding that the suit is not barred under Section 6 of the Assam Money Len­ders Act.

(iii) that the District Judge erred in law in holding that the defendant executed the hand note Ext 1 which is in English, on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 who is igno­rant of the English language.

9. Mr. J. N. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents resist­ed all the three contentions of the appellant.

10. I now propose to examine the merits of the above contentions of the ap­pellant in the light of the arguments ad­vanced before me by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

11. So far as the fast contention is concerned Mr. Sen submitted that the plain­tiff failed to produce any power of attorney executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of plain­tiff No. 2 to enable the latter to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1. He further submitted that one of the joint promissees alone is not competent to file the suit. That being the position, according to him, the suit should have been dismissed as not maintain­able.

12. The appellant did not take this plea in his written statement and consequent­ly no issue was struck on the point. The ap­pellant is, therefore, not legally entitled to take such, a plea at the time of hearing, for the first time. Be that as it may, the plaintiff No 2 stated in the plaint that he was the constituted attorney of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 Ahmed Khan himself deposed in the suit and said that, by a power of Attorney, he conferred necessary powers on the plaintiff No. 2. No doubt, this power of atto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document