9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent for refund of a sum of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 27.05.2015 upto the date of recovery. 2. As per plaintiff, he and defendant are relatives. The defendant was in need of money hence plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.80,000/- to him on 27.05.2015 on interest at 2% per month. A promissory note was also executed between the parties in presence of witnesses. The defendant had promised to repay the amount to the plaintiff as soon as possible. However neither did he return the amount nor paid any interest to the plaintiff despite repeated demands by him and despite issuance of a registered notice dated 13.02.2017 to him which remained undelivered. The plaintiff hence instituted the present claim against the defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The defendant had categorically denied execution of the promissory note and had contended that the same is forged and he had never signed upon the same. The burden hence heavily lay upon the plaintiff to prove the genuineness and execution of the said promissory note which he has totally failed to do. The claim was barred by the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act which aspect has not been considered appropriately. The counsel for defendant had met with an accident hence could not appear before the trial Court which however illegally closed the right of defendant to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses. The defendant hence has not been afforded adequate opportunity by the trial Court for defending his case which aspect ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the contention of defendent of the said document being forged and fabricated and not having been executed by him is apparently false. Since execution of the document is proved from plaintiff's evidence, the burden shifted upon defendant to prove that the same is forged and was never executed by him. The defendant has however failed to prove the said fact and has not examined any hand writing expert for proving that the signatures on the document are not his. As execution of the document was proved by plaintiff by his oral evidence, the burden was not upon him to prove signatures of defendant on the same but it was for defendant to prove otherwise which he has failed to do. 9. Plaintiff had sent a notice to defendant on 13.02.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped. A perusal of the said order shows that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in holding the said document to be admissible in evidence. 12. A perusal of proceedings of the trial Court shows that the defendant ever since the very inception had been totally negligent in prosecution of his case and had been taking repeated adjournments firstly for filing of the written statement and thereafter for cross-examining plaintiff's witnesses. His right to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses was eventually closed by the trial Court on 21.06.2018 observing that last opportunity on imposition of costs had already been granted to him earlier hence no further opportunity can be granted to him. It cannot be said that the trial Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
