The court emphasized the importance of proving the execution of the pronote and receipt, the applicability of income tax provisions, and the paying capacity of the plaintiff.

HARBANS LAL, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/decree dated 7.4.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar whereby she dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 20.9.2006 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar whereby he decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs.4,62,000/-in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant together with pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. The minimal facts are these: On 25.9.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-from the plaintiff with the promise to repay the same on demand with interest @ Rs.2% P.M. In consideration thereof, he executed the pronote and receipt of even date in favour of the plaintiff, who made request to the defendant to return this amount together with interest, the latter refused. In his written statement, the defendant has inter-alia pleaded that he did not obtain any loan from the plaintiff against any pronote. He used to sell his produce through firm M/s Professor Sikri and Sons, which was previously being run under the name and style Sikri Traders. The defendant started selling his crops through that firm. Due to water logging in the field in the year 1996, there was shortfall in the produce and this apart, in November, 1998, the only son of the defendant, namely, Satpal Singh, suddenly fell ill. He was in need of money for the treatment of his son. He asked Arwinder Sikri alias Kaku owner of the firm for advance money. He promised to pay Rs.25,000/-to the defendant, who was already to pay about Rs.1 lac to the firm. Thereafter, Arwinder Sikri alias Kaku obtained his signatures on blank pronote and retained the same as security. He cleared the accounts with that firm in March, 2003 as this firm was indulging in bungling in his account. When he demanded back the blank signed pronote, he was put off on the pretext that those papers have got mixed with other ones and the same will be traced out. Subsequently, aforesaid Kaku fabricated the pronote and receipt and filed the suit.

3. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.4,62,000/-alongwith interest on the basis of pronote and receipt? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action approved?OPD

4. Relief.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has filed this regular second appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record as well as the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection.

6. Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate representing the appellant agitated at the bar that the plaintiff- respondent was not in a position to advance such a huge amount to the defendant-appellant. A glance through the disputed receipt Ex.P.2 would reveal that the parentage as well as the address of the attesting witnesses are not borne on it and thus, their identity is rendered highly doubtful. To add further to it, the disputed pronote and receipt were not got scribed from a regular scribe. The disputed pronote and receipt do not bear the signatures of the scribe. In view of the provisions of Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/-or more should be made by way of cheque whereas in the instant case, there is no evidence to the effect that the payment of Rs.3,50,000/-was made by way of cheque. As surfaces in the cross-examination of the plaintiff-Shaminder Singh as PW2, he has lent money to 2-3 more persons barring this pronote and their business is to advance money by charging interest