JUDGMENT :- This second appeal arises out of a suit whereby the plaintiff claimed a money decree against the defendant on the ground that the latter had borrowed certain amounts from the former. The plaintiff claimed the principal sum of Rs. 2000 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defence was that there was, in reality, no borrowing and that the document, on which the plaintiff placed reliance, (which has been described as a Sarkhat) was executed by the defendant but with some different purpose and not as evidencing the alleged borrowings set up by the plaintiff. It was also contended that the document in question relied on by the plaintiff really amounted to a pronote in law and was inadmissible in evidence on account of deficiency of stamp.

2. The trial court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and decreed the same. An appeal filed in the lower appellate court failed and now the defendant has come up in the instant second appeal and in support thereof Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, has raised the following contentions before me :-

(1) His client was entitled to the benefit of U. P. Ordinance No. 13 of 1977. Time was granted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document