Raj Mohan Singh, J.—Appellant-Bharat Singh has filed this regular second appeal against judgment and decree dated 9.12.2010 passed by District Judge, Bhiwani vide which judgment and decree dated 6.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Charkhi Dadri has been upheld.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.57,200 i.e. Rs.33,500 as principle amount and Rs.23,700 as interest amount against the defendant on the ground that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 33,500 from him on 12.12.2003 in the presence of a witness. In acknowledgment of the same, borrower executed a bahi entry in the bahi of plaintiff in which he had promised to repay the amount on demand with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Despite requests made by the plaintiff, payment has not been made by the defendant and, therefore, suit has been filed.

3. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint. Defendant denied the execution of bahi entry and also denied borrowing of the amount from the plaintiff in any manner.

4. After filing replication, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.57,200 with pendente-lite and future interest ? OPD

2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

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

4. Whether suit is false and frivolous? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

6. Relief.”

5. At the stage of plaintiff’s evidence defendant was proceeded ex parte and, thereafter plaintiff led ex parte evidence. He examined PW1 Satbir Singh as deed writer, Bharat Singh himself as PW2 and Satinder Sheoran, Advocate as PW3.

6. Onus of issue No.1 was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff based his claim on the basis of bahi entry. Ex.P1 in the page/folio of bahi entry dated 12.12.2003. It has been allegedly agreed by the defendant that he will pay the amount back in the month of Jeth. The entry was allegedly signed by Satbir Singh in Hindi. Plaint filed by the plaintiff did not contain any averment regarding scribe of the same. It has not been mentioned anywhere in the plaint that Satbir Singh scribed the bahi entry on the asking of the plaintiff, nor any pleading has been made in respect of scribe. The evidence led in the context of scribe of the bahi entry is beyond the pleadings.

7. While filing the plaint, no averment has been made with regard to the alleged plea on behalf of borrower/defendant that he would repay the amount in the month of Jeth. The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW2 has tried to improve the case by deposing that the defendant agreed to pay back the amount in the month of Jeth. Since there was no averment in the plaint, therefore, evidence led on that front is also beyond pleadings and cannot be looked into.

8. Bahi entry is alleged to have been signed by Satbir Singh in Hindi. In the statement of the plaintiff, it has been mentioned that Satbir Singh had scribed the bahi entry.

9. The aforesaid scribe has been shown to be son of Bharat Singh and has signed affidavit as well as statement in English. Plaintiff has not removed this cloud whether Satbir Singh is his son or otherwise. The pleadings in terms of plaint and bahi entry Ex.P1 are at variance. The pleadings of the plaint are not in coherence with the bahi entry.

10. The case of plaintiff is that the defendant in token of acknowledgment made bahi entry of the plaintiff. The alleged entry has been stamped and even signatures are obtained on revenue stamp. Plaintiff has not produced the bahi itself. He has produced only a folio i.e. one page of the bahi.

11. The fact shows that plaintiff maintains a bahi. The production of one page i.e. folio from the original bahi has to be proved by the plaintiff himself with regard to continuity of pages. It is not the case of plaintiff that it was the only entry appearing in the bahi which is subject matter of the pr