Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.:-The present regular second appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008 passed by the lower appellate Court whereby that of the trial Court dated 19.8.2005 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,25,000/- was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed.

2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the defendant had been selling his crops to the plaintiff firm and also used to take amount on credit from time to time and had been returning the same which was credited in his account. It was pleaded that on 18.10.1997, the defendant visited the shop of the plaintiff and enquired about his account, on which a total sum of Rs.1,73,378/- (including interest of Rs.13,713/-) was outstanding towards him. The defendant took another sum of Rs.2,26,622/- in cash from the plaintiff and also executed a pronote and receipt to the tune of Rs.4 lacs on the same day, i.e. 18.10.1997 in the presence of the witnesses and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. It was further pleaded that a dispute arose between the parties and a compromise was got effected between them vide agreement dated 30.7.1998. In the said compromise, the defendant admitted the outstanding amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the execution of the pronote and receipt dated 18.10.1997 and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- to the plaintiff upto 31.10.1998, in default, the defendant would pay the amount along with interest . It was further agreed in the compromise that the defendant would withdraw the criminal case filed against the plaintiff and the plaintiff would return the pronote and receipt to the defendant after receiving the aforesaid amount. According to the plaintiff, the defendant made a payment of Rs.56,690/- on 7.5.1999 through M/s Siri Ram Kishan Chand and sons and thereafter failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount and a total amount of Rs.6,25,000/- (Rs.3,08,310/- as principal plus Rs.3,16,690/- interest) is outstanding and recoverable from the defendant after deducting the amount of Rs.56,690/- paid on 7.5.1999. The plaintiff requested the defendant to make the payment of the outstanding amount but he refused to do so and that gave rising to the filing of the suit.

3. The claim of the plaintiff was controverted by the defendant by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that neither the defendant borrowed any amount nor executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the defendant had been selling his agricultural produce at the plaintiff’s firm but after Harri 1997, the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant became strained and the plaintiff showed a huge amount outstanding against the defendant. According to the defendant, he under fear and compelling circumstances signed the pronote and bahis and the agreement dated 30.7.1998 was a false and fabricated document as no compromise was effected between him and the plaintiff. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

4. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the pronote and receipt dated 18.10.1997 on the basis of which compromise dated 30.7.1998 was effected. It was further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of Rs.6,25,000/- from the plaintiff and that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008 accepted the appeal. The lower appellate court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court held that the suit was filed within limitation. The lower appellat