Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Pronote Preparation and Affidavits - Main points and insights:
Execution and Authenticity of Pronote: Several cases confirm the execution of the pronote involved signatures of the defendant, sometimes with thumb impressions or signatures, and attestations by witnesses or scribes. For example, ["Gunesetti Prakash Rao VS Sathi Venkata Krishna Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"] states, the signature on the alleged suit pronote is a forged one, and ["K. Venkateswara Rao VS V. Satyavatamma - Andhra Pradesh"] notes, the suit pronote contains the alleged thumb mark of the defendant only. This indicates that affidavits from witnesses or scribes often support the genuineness or contest the authenticity of the pronote.
Affidavits Supporting or Contesting the Pronote: Many cases mention affidavits filed by defendants or witnesses. For instance, ["Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523"] states, these affidavits have not been controverted by the plaintiffs, and ["Tirumalapudi Balaji VS D Kannaiah Naidu - Andhra Pradesh"] notes affidavits from defendants claiming the pronote was forged or obtained under false pretenses. These affidavits are crucial in establishing whether the pronote was executed voluntarily and whether signatures are genuine.
Forgery and Manipulation Claims: Multiple cases highlight allegations that the pronote was forged or manipulated on blank forms. For example, ["00200067477"] alleges, Des Raj had manipulated a sale agreement in his favour and also filed the present suit by manipulating the pronote on the blank printed forms bearing his signatures. Similarly, ["P. SELVARAJ vs KALIAMMAL - Madras"] mentions that affidavits support the claim that the pronote was forged or obtained through misrepresentation.
Legal Procedures and Evidence: Courts have emphasized the importance of affidavits and expert opinions in verifying signatures. For example, ["Gunesetti Prakash Rao VS Sathi Venkata Krishna Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"] mentions, the signature on Ex.C8, therefore, the trial Court has compared the signature of suit summons with that of signature available on Ex.A1 promissory note. Expert opinion on signatures is often sought to determine authenticity.
Analysis and Conclusion:
To prepare a Pronote with affidavits, it is essential to include affidavits from the borrower (defendant) and witnesses or scribes attesting to the execution of the pronote, signatures, and consideration. These affidavits should clearly state whether the execution was voluntary, whether signatures are genuine, and if consideration was passed.
In cases of dispute, affidavits can support claims of forgery or false execution, and expert signatures comparison can be appended as evidence. For example, ["Gunesetti Prakash Rao VS Sathi Venkata Krishna Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"] and ["K. Venkateswara Rao VS V. Satyavatamma - Andhra Pradesh"] demonstrate the importance of expert signature comparison and affidavits in establishing authenticity.
Proper documentation includes:
References:- ["Gunesetti Prakash Rao VS Sathi Venkata Krishna Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["K. Venkateswara Rao VS V. Satyavatamma - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Tirumalapudi Balaji VS D Kannaiah Naidu - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["00200067477"]- ["P. SELVARAJ vs KALIAMMAL - Madras"]- ["Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523"]- ["P. SELVARAJ vs KALIAMMAL - Madras"]
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
If you're a lender facing non-repayment of a loan backed by a promissory note (pronote), you might be wondering, please prepare pronote suit with affidavits. Filing a recovery suit is a common recourse in India, especially under the summary procedure of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This expedited process helps recover dues quickly when the claim is based on a written instrument like a pronote. But success hinges on proper drafting, attaching originals, and supporting affidavits to prove execution and consideration. In this guide, we'll break down the steps, evidentiary requirements, and strategies drawn from key judgments. Gurmukh Singh VS Jaswant Kaur - 2011 3 Supreme 137Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523
Pronote suits leverage the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), shifting the burden to the defendant once execution is proved. However, defendants often counter with affidavits alleging forgery or no consideration, seeking leave to defend. Understanding these dynamics is crucial. Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao VS Thadikonda Ramulu Firm - 2008 4 Supreme 79
Order 37 CPC is designed for summary suits on bills of exchange, hundis, or promissory notes, offering faster decrees without full trials unless the defendant secures leave to defend. Typically, allege:- Specific loan amount and date.- Execution of pronote (attach original).- Interest rate and repayment terms (on demand).- Non-payment despite notice.
Courts decree if execution is proved: the execution of the pronotes having been proved, the presumption under Section 118(a) must come into play. Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao VS Thadikonda Ramulu Firm - 2008 4 Supreme 79 Example: A suit for Rs.2,31,000/- based on a Rs.1,50,000/- pronote dated 2.5.1994 with 2% interest succeeded due to proper filing. Gurmukh Singh VS Jaswant Kaur - 2011 3 Supreme 137
Regular suits are possible but slower; Order 37 is preferred for its efficiency. Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 520
The plaint must include:1. Parties' details: Plaintiff (lender) vs. Defendant (borrower).2. Loan facts: Plaintiff advanced Rs.1,50,000/- loan to defendant on date at place; defendant executed pronote (Ex.P1 original). Gurmukh Singh VS Jaswant Kaur - 2011 3 Supreme 1373. Default and demand: Notice sent, no payment.4. Relief: Principal + interest + costs.5. Verification: Affidavit affirming truth.
Original pronote is mandatory; photostats risk rejection, and secondary evidence requires strict loss proof via affidavit/police report. Plaintiff/respondent had failed to prove on record loss of original pronote... secondary evidence... could not be read. Gurdial Singh VS Dalveer Kaur - Punjab and Haryana (2019)
Ensure proper stamping; unstamped or tampered stamps lead to rejection. Gurmukh Singh VS Jaswant Kaur - 2011 3 Supreme 137
Affidavits are pivotal:- Plaintiff's verifying affidavit: Confirms plaint facts, execution, and cause of action under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC. Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523- Witness affidavits: Attesting witnesses and scribe prove execution. PW2 Ajaib Singh, an attesting witness... submitted his affidavit Ex.PW2/A... proving original pronote. Gurdial Singh VS Dalveer Kaur - Punjab and Haryana (2019) Scribe: The scribe Deen Dayal... deposed that he had scribed the pronote... read over to the defendant. Kashmir Chand VS Harnam Chand - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1891
Affidavits must be dated and attested on deposition day, not pre-dated. Kashmir Chand VS Harnam Chand - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1891
Defendants file counter-affidavits for leave to defend on triable issues like forgery. Courts grant unconditional leave if bona fide: there are many triable issues... the pronote was forged... defendants may be given an unconditional opportunity. Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523
Execution proof via witnesses/scribe/handwriting expert triggers NI Act presumption: once the execution of the pronote has been proved, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 118(a)... respondents had failed to discharge the initial burden. Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao VS Thadikonda Ramulu Firm - 2008 4 Supreme 79
Burden shifts: Defendant must rebut no consideration. In one case, plaintiff proved execution via oral evidence and expert; defendant's fraud claims failed for lack of evidence. Sawai Singh VS Jai Bhagwan - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 646 Another: Expert opined signature matched, upholding decree. Veerisetty Krishna VS Dane Srinivasa Rao - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1219
Plead recited consideration (e.g., cash loan); variants rebut presumption. K. P. O. Moideenkutty Hajee VS Pappu Manjooran - 1996 5 Supreme 113
From other precedents:- Plaintiff bears initial burden on forgery claims: The initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness... especially when the defendant claims it is forged. Suit dismissed for failure. Rayadurgam Balasubramanyam VS C. Venkataramanaiah - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1336- Mere denial insufficient; plaintiff must prove: The plaintiff had failed to prove execution of the pronote and the receipt as well as its consideration. Ch. Birbal Singh v. Harphool Khan and Another - 1976 Supreme(Online)(All) 7- Defendant admitted blank pronote but failed to disprove; burden on consideration unmet. K. Saraswathi W/o. Erama Reddy VS G. Munilakshmamma W/o. T. Brahmananda Reddy - 2024 Supreme(AP) 77
Anticipate: Request handwriting expert if forgery alleged. Rayadurgam Balasubramanyam VS C. Venkataramanaiah - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1336
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SD), PlaceSummary Suit No. ___/2024Plaintiff: Name vs. Defendant: Name
PLAINT under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC1. Plaintiff advanced Rs.1,50,000/- on date; defendant executed pronote Ex.P1 + receipt, 2% interest on demand. Gurmukh Singh VS Jaswant Kaur - 2011 3 Supreme 1372. No payment despite demand.3. Valuation: Rs.amount. Relief: Decree + costs.
VERIFICATION: Contents true. Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao VS Thadikonda Ramulu Firm - 2008 4 Supreme 79
PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT: Paras true; pronote for loan; no defense. Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523Gurdial Singh VS Dalveer Kaur - Punjab and Haryana (2019)
ATTESTING WITNESS AFFIDAVIT (Ex.PW2/A): Saw execution; genuine. Gurdial Singh VS Dalveer Kaur - Punjab and Haryana (2019)Kashmir Chand VS Harnam Chand - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1891
SCRIBE AFFIDAVIT (Ex.PW1/A): Scribed, read over, signed. Kashmir Chand VS Harnam Chand - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1891
For tailored drafting, engage a lawyer. This approach, backed by precedents, maximizes recovery chances.
References (selected): Gurmukh Singh VS Jaswant Kaur - 2011 3 Supreme 137, Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao VS Thadikonda Ramulu Firm - 2008 4 Supreme 79, Lala Ram VS Basti Mal - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 523, Gurdial Singh VS Dalveer Kaur - Punjab and Haryana (2019), Kashmir Chand VS Harnam Chand - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1891, Rayadurgam Balasubramanyam VS C. Venkataramanaiah - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1336, Sawai Singh VS Jai Bhagwan - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 646, Veerisetty Krishna VS Dane Srinivasa Rao - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1219
#PronoteSuit #Order37CPC #LegalRecovery
The plaintiff also deposed that defendant himself brought the pronote and receipt and filled up them in his own writing and also expressed no requirement of any other person to write pronote and receipt for him as he asserted that he could prepare the same being educated. ... By denying the averments of the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is based on false facts and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. ... The plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery with t....
that Ex.A1 pronote is a genuine and the suit pronote is supported by consideration. ... the signature on the alleged suit pronote is a forged one. ... The appellant has not disputing his signature on Ex.C8, therefore, the trial Court has compared the signature of suit summons with that of signature available on Ex.A1 promissory note and came to conclusion that the suit pronote is a genuine one and suit pronote bear....
, the suit pronote is a forged document and the defendant is taking necessary steps to send the suit pronote to the hand writing expert to prove his case and to disprove the case of the plaintiff. ... It is not the case of the plaintiff that the consideration is passed under Ex.A1 pronote. Admittedly, no consideration is passed under Ex.A1 pronote. As stated supra, the Ex.A1 suit pronote is based on which the suit is filed under whi....
As seen from Ex.A1 pronote, the suit pronote contains the alleged thumb mark of the defendant only, the defendant is not a signatory. ... It is not the case of the defendant that after receiving money from the plaintiff PW3 created the suit pronote. It was not suggested to PW1 by the learned counsel for defendant that the plaintiff gave money to PW3 and that PW3 created the suit pronote. ... Though PW1 is not an attestor or scribe of the suit #HL_STA....
The defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendants neither borrowed any amount nor executed the pronote and the receipt in suit; that the plaintiff had to get a joint wall of the parties re - constructed and the defendants were to bear half costs. ... The learned District Judge, Meerut, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove execution of the pronote and the receipt as well as its consideration. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed wi....
The pronote dated 22.06.2015 claimed by Dinesh is time barred. However, taking advantage of the signature of this defendant on that pronote in favour of Dinesh, the signatures of this defendant on the present suit pronote is forged. ... The defendant in the suit filed his written statement, denied the plaint allegations and stated that he never borrowed money and never executed the suit pronote. He mentioned certain facts from para Nos.8 to 10 and finally sought for d....
She used to stay at the place where she was working, thereby the address shown in the suit pronote is in correct and she need not pay the suit amount and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. ... Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the defendant admitted in the written statement that one Lakshmi obtained blank signed pronote from her and the said Lakshmi might have been fabricated the said empty pronote and might have filed the present suit. ... Pe....
V.Durga Rani, who has been holding G.P.A. on behalf of the plaintiff, testified as PW.1 and one of the attestors of the suit pronote testified as PW.2. The suit pronote was exhibited as Ex.A.1 and the G.P.A. was exhibited as Ex.A.2. ... As against that what was required for the defendants was to show that the suit pronote did not bear their signatures or that no consideration passed under the pronote. ... His defence was that from the plaintiff, he never borrowed mone....
The material on record reveals that the suit pronote was sent to the expert for comparison of the signature on Ex.A1 pronote. The expert sent an opinion that the signature on Ex.A1 suit pronote is belongs to the defendant. ... failed to discharge the pronote debt and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. ... The plaintiff to discharge his burden, examined himself as PW1 and also examined two attestors in the suit pronote#HL_EN....
... In this case the trial court found that both the pronotes viz. the earlier pronote as also the later pronote, i.e. the pronote in suit were for consideration. ... Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit ? If so, against which of the defendants ? ... 2. Is the pronote without consideration ? ... 3. Has it been executed under the circumstances as alleged by the defendant No. 1 ? If so, can a suit be maintained on the pronote and is i....
He can prepare a will or other testamentary documents and authorize to prepare affidavits for various purposes. Similarly, he can note and certify general transactions relating to negotiable instruments. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner had prepared "Moka" report, no prejudice was caused to the either of party in view of the fact that subsequently even when Commissioner made "Moka" report pursuant to the directions of the courts, it gave similar report. Referring to the aforesaid, it is submitted that petitioner had prepared "Moka" report at the instructi....
02: The Joint Director of Agri. (Ext), Sriganganagar. (Ext) Bikaner with reference to his letter No. 1581 dated 20.9.2003 against analsis report No.395-97 dated 11.07.2003. He may please contact the Assistant Public Prosecutor & Prepare the case for prosecution in consultation with the Assistant Public Prosecutor (with 2 spare copies).
"in this case costing has been approved by the competent authority on pre-page. Now ADC (Systems) may please prepare the demand letter. "
He may please contact the Assistant Public Prosecutor & Prepare the case for prosecution in consultation with the Assistant Public Prosecutor (with 2 spare copies). (Ext) Jodhpur with reference to his letter No. 4047-48 dated 20.9.2001 against analysis report No. 935-37 dated 14.6.2000.
Consequently this will necessitate the preparations of lists of promotions in the lower ranks also. Please prepare all promotions lists immediately under rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
