IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

rd

ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 4 of 2010 RAMESHWAR YADAV Versus VEERAN SINGH Appearance:

Mr. Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for applicant.

None for respondent.

ORDER The civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the rd judgment and decree dated 06/11/2009 passed by 3 Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 2-B/2009, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 10/12/2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Pohari, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 1-B/2006 and suit filed by applicant for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit against defendant by pleading inter alia that defendant had taken an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and executed a promissory note. Since defendant refused to return the amount, therefore, plaintiff, by registered notice dated 17/01/2006, demanded his money back. As the amount has not been refunded, therefore, suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month.

3. Defendant filed his written statement and denied the execution of any promissory note. He also denied that he had ever taken loan of Rs. 15,000/-. It was claimed that since defendant has filed a civil suit against plaintiff, therefore, by way of counterblast, suit in question has been filed.

4. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit.

5. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, respondent/defendant preferred an appeal, which has been allowed and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been set aside.

6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for applicant/plaintiff that plaintiff has proved that defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/- and had also executed a promissory note.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.

8. Respondent/defendant has denied the execution of promissory note Exhibit P-1 and receipt of promissory note Exhibit P-2. Defendant has examined the Handwriting Expert to show that promissory note Exhibit P-1 and its receipt Exhibit P-2 were not executed by him. The Trial Court has rejected the report of Handwriting Expert by its finding recorded in paragraph 7 and held that defendant is trying to suppress the material facts and although he had initially refused to identify his signature on the sale deed Exhibit P-5 but later on he also admitted his signature on the said document. Thus, an adverse inference was drawn against defendant, and it was held that defendant is in habit of signing differently at different places.

However, Appellate Court has considered the evidence of Rameshwar (PW- 1) and Parvat Singh (PW-2) to hold that these witnesses have not stated that defendant has signed the promissory note and receipt Exhibits P-1 and P-2 in their presence.

9. Aforesaid finding given by the Appellate Court runs contrary to the evidence led by Rameshwar (PW-1) and Parvat Singh (PW-2).

10. Rameshwar (PW-1) in paragraph 1 of his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has stated as under:

“

तथा वीरनिसंह ने मुझ शपथकता(cid:20) के (cid:21)हत (cid:22)ोमेशर(cid:24) नोट एवं धन (cid:22)ाि(cid:28) क(cid:29) रसीद स(cid:31)पा(cid:21)दत कर उस पर अपने ह(cid:34)ता(cid:35)र (cid:21)कए तथा सा(cid:35)ी गण के ह(cid:34)ता(cid:35)र सा(cid:35)ी के

”

(cid:38)प म(cid:39) कराए थे।

11. Similarly, Parvat Singh (PW-2) has stated in paragraph 1 of his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC as under:

“

वाद(cid:24) से (cid:22)ितवाद(cid:24) वीरन िसंह ने (cid:21)दनांक 21-01-2003 को 15000=00 पं(cid:48)ह हजार (cid:50)पये नगद(cid:24) उधार उधार (cid:22)ा(cid:28) (cid:21)कए थे इस बाबत (cid:22)ोमेशर(cid:24) नोट एवं पावती रसीद (cid:21)क िलखा पड़(cid:24) स(cid:31)पा(cid:21)दत क(cid:29) क(cid:29) (cid:57)जस पर सा(cid:35)ी के (cid:38)प म(cid:39)