The plaintiff must prove the possession of the amount advanced to the defendant and attach original documents along with the plaint. Additionally, the plaintiff needs to explain the source of the substantial amount advanced to the defendant.

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Gurdial Singh had brought a suit against defendant Partap Singh seeking recovery of Rs.4,55,000/- along with interest on the basis of pronote/receipt dated 27.10.2000 besides craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property.

2. As per the version of the plaintiff, defendant Partap Singh had raised a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from him on 27.10.2000 and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour putting his signatures thereon in presence of the witnesses and the witnesses had attested those documents; that the defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @ 1.50% per month on demand, however, he failed to pay any amount to the plaintiff towards principal or interest on demand despite repeated requests, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.

3. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising legal plea that the Court in question lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit since the defendant did not have any property at village Dharamgarh Chhana, whereas the alleged pronote and receipt were executed at Patran, Tehsil Samana. On merits, the defendant denied having raised any loan from the plaintiff or having executed any pronote and receipt. He dubbed those documents to be forged and fabricated contending that the alleged witnesses were closely related to the plaintiff, whereas the alleged scribe was commission agent of the plaintiff. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether defendant executed pronote dated 27.10.2000 in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, if so at what rate of interest? OPP.

3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.

5. Relief.

6. Both the parties led evidence in respect of their claims.

7. During the course of his evidence, the plaintiff got his own statement recorded as PW1 repeating on oath his case as given in his pleadings. In addition to that he examined Sh. Ajaib Singh as PW2, HC Pritam Singh as PW3, Sh. P.C. Jindal, Advocate as PW4, Sh. Satnam Singh as PW5, Sh. Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert as PW6. After tendering certified copy of affidavit Mark X, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.

8. In rebuttal, defendant Partap Singh got his statement recorded as DW1 and repeated on oath his version as given in the written statement. In addition to that he examined Sh.Manjit Singh as DW2. With that the evidence of the defendant stood closed.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant had died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representative was brought on record.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, issue No.3 against the defendant, issue No.4 against the defendant. Resultantly suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of pronote till decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Since the defendant had died during the pendency of the suit, the trial Court directed that the decree would be executable against all the legal representatives of the deceased Partap Singh, who had succeeded to his estate. Relief of permanent injunction was, however, not granted to the plaintiff. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010.

11. Legal representative of the defendant