1. 1. The appellant-defendant, Mohan Lal, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Chittorgarh wherein the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent-plaintiff, Bhupal Singh.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Bhupal Singh, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 46,200/-, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant-defendant, Mohan Lal, had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/- for his household needs. It was agreed that on the said loan amount, he would pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. The said loan was paid to him on 07.11.2003. From 07.11.2003 to 04.11.2006, he owed an interest of Rs. 16,200/-. Therefore, he owed a total amount of Rs. 46,200/-. In order to repay the said loan amount, he had given a promissory note to the respondent-plaintiff. However, since he was unwilling to repay the said loan amount, the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit.

3. The appellant-defendant filed his written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint. Although he admitted to his signature on the promissory note, but according to him, he had bought two tyres from the respondent-plaintiff, out of which one tyre was found to be defected. Thus, there was a dispute as to the amount owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. He further claimed that he was asked to sign blank piece of paper. The said paper was subsequently used for recording of the promissory note. Therefore, he denied his liability for paying the alleged loan amount.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed two issues including the issue of relief. In order to substantiate his case, the respondent-plaintiff examined three witnesses, and submitted five documents. In turn, the defendant examined himself as a witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2009, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit.

5. Since the respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, he filed the first appeal before the learned Judge. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2009 and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Hence, this second appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the respondent-plaintiff has failed to examine his son, Pradeep Kumar, who was the author of the promissory note. Therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been read against him. Secondly, the respondent-plaintiff has examined only interested witnesses. For, Ashok Kumar (P.W.3) happens to be the respondent-plaintiff's employee. Therefore, his testimony cannot be believed. Thirdly, the witnesses have admitted the fact that they did not know the appellant-defendant. Fourthly, there is no evidence to show that there was a passing of consideration. Therefore, the promissory note cannot be given effect too. Fifthly, the appellant-defendant had claimed that, in fact, he had bought two tyres and there was some dispute with regard to the amount required to be paid by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. He had further claimed that he was asked to sign blank piece of paper containing revenue stamps. Subsequently, the blank piece of paper was used for creating promissory note.

7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment dated 23.10.2009.

8. At the outset, it is relevant to point out that the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not show the existence of substantial question of law. His contentions are basically confined to the questions of facts. Therefore, this appeal is without any merit.

9. Even other