Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 6067.C of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

CM No. 6069.C of 2012

The application is allowed and Annexures P/1 and P/2 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

RSA No. 2174 of 2012

Defendant Saroj Saini having lost in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.

2. Respondent – plaintiff Saroj Bala filed suit against defendant – appellant for recovery of Rs.49,000/- alleging that the defendant borrowed Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff vide agreement dated 15.3.2001 and agreed to repay the same upto 14.3.2002, failing which the defendant also agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum. The defendant failed to repay the amount as agreed, necessitating the filing of the suit.

3. The defendant denied the plaint averments. The defendant denied having taken any loan from the plaintiff or having executed any agreement. It was pleaded that the agreement is false and fabricated document. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2010 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs.49,000/- with interest thereon @ 6% per annum till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2012. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. The plaintiff in order to prove her case appeared in the witness box as PW2 and examined Hitender PW1, an attesting witness of the agreement. Both of them have broadly stated according to the plaintiff’s version.

7. On the other hand, defendant examined Stamp Vendor Kantikaran DW1. He stated that stamp paper for the impugned agreement was purchased from him by the defendant. He also identified the signatures of the defendant in this regard. The defendant herself appeared as DW2 and stated according to the her version.

8. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove her case. Plaintiff’s statement is supported by sworn testimony of PW1 Hitender, an attesting witness of the agreement Ex. P/1. Both of them stated that defendant borrowed Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the aforesaid agreement. Their statements are further corroborated by defendant’s own evidence as Kantikaran, DW1, Stamp Vendor has stated that stamp paper for the impugned agreement was purchased from him by the defendant. In these circumstances, self serving statement of defendant is not sufficient to controvert the evidence of the plaintiff which is supported by testimony of the Stamp Vendor examined by the defendant herself.

9. Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned agreement is infact pronote but does not bear requisite revenue stamps and is therefore, not admissible in evidence. Reference was made to section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to contend that it is the duty of the court to see that the instrument is duly stamped. Reliance in this regard was also placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 305. It was also contended that deficiency of revenue stamps on pronote cannot be made good even under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Sadasivan vs. B. Unnikrishnan Nair, 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 224. It was also contended that application Annexure P/2 was moved by defendant – appellant in the trial court that the suit is liable to be dismissal in view of violation of provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (in short, Money Lenders Act) by the plaintiff because the plaintiff is money lender and has no money lending licence under the Money Lenders Act.

10. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. In the first instance, it cannot