Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26681
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
Bhanwarlal – Appellant
Versus
Gulab – Respondent
FA 615/2007
,Ak.Saraswat,Ns.Tomar,Yashpal Rathore,
The court emphasized the importance of cogent evidence in proving the debt and highlighted the need for factual and legal correctness in trial court judgments.
Headnote:
Money Lending - Recovery Suit - The court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for recovery of the principal amount and interest, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. The respondents were directed to pay the principal amount along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the transaction till realization, as well as the notice expenses to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,000/-, being the principal amount and interest, which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondents denied borrowing the amount and executing a promissory note in favor of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had provided cogent evidence, including the promissory note and notice, to prove the debt and the failure of the respondents to repay the amount. The court held that the trial court had committed material errors of fact and law in dismissing the suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the borrowing of the amount by the respondents, the execution of the promissory note, and the failure to repay the debt. The trial court also considered the appellant's involvement in money lending business, which was found to be unsubstantiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the promissory note, notice, and the admission of the respondents regarding borrowing money from the appellant to establish the debt. The court also rejected the trial court's finding regarding the appellant's involvement in money laundering business due to lack of cogent evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit for recovery was decreed. The respondents were directed to pay the principal amount along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the transaction till realization, as well as the notice expenses to the appellant.
ORDER
1. Appellant has preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.8.2007 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.26-B/2006, whereby the suit for recovery of total Rs.62,000/- filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are father and son and both the parties resided in the same village. On 8.7.2004 defendants/respondents borrowed a sum of Rs.41,000/- cash from the appellant for their personal necessity at village Kanghatti and executed a promissory note in favour of the appellant and promised to repay the same together with 2% interest per month. Despite receiving the registered notice issued by the appellant, respondents failed to repay the same, therefore, appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against them for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.41,000/- and interest of Rs.20,750/- and notice expenses of Rs.250/-, total recovery of Rs.62,000. He prayed for recovery of Rs.62,000/- with costs and future interest.
3. The respondents/defendants in their written statement denied all these allegations by submitting that they neither borrowed Rs.41,000/- nor executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff and the suit deserves to be dismissed.
4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, framed the issues and on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties and after scrutinizing the evidence, trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant has preferred this first appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below is against the law and facts.
Respondents/defendants in their evidence before the trial court categorically admitted that they used to borrow money from the appellant from time-to-time.
Respondents have failed to prove that appellant is a money lender and no issue has been framed in this regard. Appellant is a poor farmer. He did transaction of Rs.10,000/- with Jagdish Nai for the purpose of only his help. Hence, he prays that the appeal be allowed and order to pay Rs.62,000/- with interest till its realization.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is based upon the cogent evidence and does not require for any interference.
7. Appellant/plaintiff Bhanvarlal (PW-1) before the trial Court categorically stated in his statement that on 8.7.2004 he has lended Rs.41,000/- cash to the respondents and both the respondents have signed the promissory note (Ex.P/1) and agreed to pay 2% interest per month on the principal amount, but they failed to pay the same. Then he gave a notice (Ex.P/3) to the respondents, its postal receipt is Ex.P/4, but despite service of notice respondents did not pay him any amount. The statement of the appellant Bhanvarlal is well supported by Prabhulal (PW-2), who is the author of the promissory note (Ex.P/1). Prabhulal (PW-2) corroborated that before him plaintiff lended Rs.41,000/- to the respondents and the respondents have executed and signed the promissory note (Ex.P/1).
8. Respondent/defendant Gulab (DW-1) deposed that he is a poor person and although he has old transaction with the appellant, but he never borrowed more than Rs.5,000/-. Whenever he borrowed any money from the plaintiff, he used to get his signature on the blank promissory note. Only Rs.2,000/- of the appellant was due upon him and the appellant came in his house and demanded money and abused him in filthy language and also beaten him, due to which he fell down on the road. Then appellant started beating him, due to which his finger has been cut down and he became unconscious. Then he lodged FIR against the plaintiff. Prabhulal (DW-2) also corroborated the statement of Gulab (DW-1).
9. The first contention of le
