1. This appeal, by plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-B/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit

No.6-B/2005 whereby plaintiff's suit for recovery under Order 37 rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that original defendant No.2 Damodar Prasad and respondent No.8 Rajendra Prasad were the members of joint hindu family doing business of respondent No.1- M/s. Bajaj Traders. Plaintiff-appellant had good relations with them. Through one Dalal appellant had advanced a loan of Rs.25,000/- to respondents-defendants for 1% monthly interest, as requested by the defendants for business purposes. The said transaction was reduced in writing as Ex.P-2 dated 13.10.1999 where under the loan was promised to be paid back by respondents on demand by the appellant. As the loan amount was not paid by the respondents despite demand, on 6.7.2000 demand was raised through legal notice. The respondents still did not return the same and, therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.25,000/- as principal amount and Rs.8,940/- as interest.

3. Defendant No.2 Damodar and respondent No.8 Rajendra Prasad filed separate written-statements and denied plaint allegations. It was denied that defendants are members of joint Hindu Family. It was submitted that partition had taken place amongst them 13 years ago and they are doing their separate businesses and living separately. It was denied that any loan was advanced by plaintiff-appellant to defendants. It was also denied that any document, much less Ex.P-2 was executed in respect of said loan transaction. It was submitted that Ex.P-2 is forged and fabricated and, as such, the suit was sought to be dismissed as based on concocted facts having no factual basis.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed the issues and allowed parties to lead evidence and upon critical evaluation of evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court has again dealt with the entire evidence on record and confirmed the findings of facts so recorded. It has been observed that the suit was filed through power of attorney holder of plaintiff. The said power of attorney was executed on 17.6.2003. Though the power of attorney holder Padamchand Gupta (PW1) has deposed in support of plaint averments as narrated above, however, in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent No.8 Rajendra Prasad had not signed the document Ex.P-2 in his presence. It has also been stated that at the time of execution of Ex.P-2, plaintiff Deepak Gupta was also not present. It is also admitted that Ex.P-2 does not bear the signatures of any witness, so much so that it even does not bear the signatures of Dalal Bharosilal Gupta (PW2), in whose presence, it was alleged that the loan transaction had taken place.

6. As such, the Courts below have found that admittedly the transaction had not taken place either in front of the plaintiff or in front of his power of attorney holder. That apart, even the Dalal Bharosilal Gupta (PW2) in his cross-examination has stated that he is not aware that defendants are members of joint Hindu Family; he has not seen all the documents of M/s. Bajaj Traders; he has no knowledge as to when M/s. Bajaj Traders has been closed and only on the basis of document (Ex.P-2) he states that respondent No.8 Rajendra Prasad was the owner of M/s. Bajaj Traders. He has confirmed that neither the plaintiff nor his power of attorney holder was present at the time of loan transaction. He does not have any licence to do the business of providing loans.

7. Under such circumstances, the Courts below have concurrently held that the factum of execution of Ex.P-2 was not proved. That apart, defendants have specifically denied to have signed document (Ex.P-2).

8. Before this Court, learned counsel for t