The court emphasized the importance of assessing the entirety of a witness's evidence, even if they are declared hostile, and highlighted the significance of an admission by the Defendant in supporting the Plaintiff's version of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. Misra, J. - The Plaintiff's suit is based on the promissory note Ext. 1 dated 5-10-1966 under which Re. 300/- was advanced in cash to the Defendant. The Defendant's case is that he is a night-watchman and before he got the service he very often approached the Plaintiff to write some applications on his behalf. In that connection he left some blank papers with the Plaintiff carrying his signatures. The Plaintiff might have used one of such papers for fabricating the suit document. The learned Munsif believed the defence case and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the Plaintiff's suit. Against the appellate judgment this Civil Revision has been filed as the amount involved is below its. 1000/-, u/s 102, Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Mr. Panda contended that the learned Subordinate Judge did not keep the proper legal perspective in view and that his judgment is vitiated in as much as he discussed the blank paper theory first.

3. Law on the point is well settled. Where the Defendant advances a story that a blank paper signed by him was handed over to the Plaintiff, he does not admit the execution of the document. In such a case the onus is still on the Plaintiff to prove execution and payment of consideration. The Plaintiff has discharged his onus by examining himself as p.w. 1 and the two attestors p.ws. 2 and 3. Both the attestors deposed that they did not see the actual passing of consideration and the signing of the promissory note by the Defendant after it was written out. According to them, the Plaintiff represented to both of them that the Defendant had already signed the promissory Note Ext. 1. If this was the only evidence of the attestors, the Plaintiff might have a difficult case. But the attestors further Bay that the Defendant was present at the spot. They asked him whether he had taken Rs. 300/-by executing the promissory note Ext. 1, and the Defendant accepted that position. It is now well settled that even if a witness is hostile, his entire evidence is not to be discarded. It is for the Court to go through the entire evidence and see what part of his evidence is acceptable. Though the two attestors have been declared to be hostile, to me they appear to be truthful witnesses. Possibly they did not see the actual passing of the consideration and the execution of the promissory note. Their statement that they got an admission from Defendant seems to be the real truth of the matter. If the admission is correct that supports the Plaintiff's version that money was advanced under Ext. 1. Mr. Panda very fairly conceded that the Defendant's story of giving a blank paper has not been established. On the aforesaid analysis, the conclusion taken in the judgment under appeal is correct.

4. In the result, the Civil Revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 32/-.

Final Result : Dismissed