9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus entitled to a decree in his favour. The Trial Court judgment is accordingly set aside and the suit is decreed for a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs with interest @ 6% per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. - RFA 189/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2018 - Prathiba M. Singh, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : None ORDER Prathiba M. Singh, J (Oral) CM APPL.5323/2015 1. The counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter, Plaintiff‟) prays for condonation of delay on the ground that the Plaintiff was suffering from jaundice during the relevant period and hence could not take steps to file the appeal. In view of the reasons stated in the application, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n affidavit. The Defendant denies the availing of the loan and, in respect of the receipt, it is the Defendant s case that on 4th September, 2008 at night about 10:30 P.M., the Plaintiff and his associates forcefully got the written receipt executed. 5. Two witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW-2 and PW-3 appeared and deposed that the written agreement was entered into in their presence on 4th September, 2008. PW-3 specifically submits that at the time of the transaction the Plaintiff, the Defendant and his wife were present and the loan was given. PW-3 has categorically denied that there was pressure and force exerted for signing the receipt dated 4th September, 2008 (Exhibit PW1/A). 6. What is significant is the evidence of DW-1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply was given by my counsel. It is incorrect to suggest that 1am deposing falsely due to not repay the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/-. The Defendant also contradicts himself by firstly, saying that PW1/A i.e. receipt dated 4th September, 2008 is not in his handwriting. Thereafter he says that he had signed on blank paper. Moreover, the Defendant has not produced any witness who could corroborate his version that the receipt was executed by force or by putting any pressure. No police complaint has been filed. Thus, the Defendant, appears to be resiling from repayment, after having availed of the loan. It is not possible to presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the receipt was executed under pressure or coercion, merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
