JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellant/plaintiff in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012 dismissing the Plaintiff/appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt executed in his favour by defendant on 20.11.1999.

3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:

"2. The facts put forth in the plaint are that defendant Jagjit Singh s/o Lal Singh resident of Village Jandanwala, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 20.11.1999 at Bathinda for the installation of the building of cold Storage. He undertook to pay interest @ 28 per mensum and promised to return the principal amount alongwith with interest on demand by the plaintiff. As a token of the said amount, Jagjit Singh defendant executed a pronote and receipt on 20.11.1999, in favour of the plaintiff. After admitting the contents to be correct and affixing the requisite stamps, defendant appended his signatures on the pronote and receipt in the presence of the scribe and marginal witnesses. The defendant inspite of several demands by the plaintiff had failed to make the payment either towards the principal amount or towards the interest A total amount of RS.2 lac towards principal amount and Rs.48,000/- as interest has become due from the defendant to plaintiff, which the defendant has failed to return inspite of repeated requests. Hence, the present suit."

4. Upon notice, defendant filed written statement taking legal objections that plaintiff had no locus standi or cause of action to file suit; suit was not maintainable. Plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands and had concealed true and material facts. It was stated that plaintiff had taken his signature on the pronote by misrepresentation without any consideration. Further certain averments were made and at last, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.1. Replication was filed reiterating the averments of plaint. In the replication, plaintiff admitted the execution of agreement to sell by defendant and his son in favour of wife and mother-in-law of plaintiff. Remaining averments in the written statement were denied.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of pronote and receipt dated 20.11.1999 from the plaintiff? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed along with interest? If so, at what rate?OPD.

3. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents? OPD

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

5. Whether plaintiff is a money lender? If so its effect? OPD

6. Relief."

6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidence vis-a-vis pleadings, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against plaintiff. Issues No.3 and 4 were decided against defendant. While deciding issue No.5, findings were returned that this issue was framed inadvertently since there was no plea of defendant regarding plaintiff being a money lender, to the contrary plea was that plaintiff was a petition writer and an advocate. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011, appellant/plaintiff