TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h who specifically stated therein that the calculations with regard to the principal money as well as interest were being done by his brother Balkar Singh. He even further deposed that he along with his brother Balkar Singh were jointly calculating the principal amount as well as interest. He was not even specific and categoric while denying the receipt Ex.D-1 except for a vague and uncertain assertion in this regard - in view of the deposition made by the respondent, it can easily be traced out that the amount of loan taken by the appellant-defendant was duly returned against the receipt Ex.D-1 which even binds the respondent/plaintiff as well. Based thereupon, it is apparent that the most relevant admissible evidence in the shape of depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instance of respondent/plaintiff - appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Natasha Munjal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL) By way of present appeal challenge has been made to the Judgments and Decrees dated 11.02.2015 and 20.08.2013, passed by the Courts below whereby, the suit for recovery in favour of respondent-plaintiff has been decreed. Brief facts of the case are that based on a pro-note as well as receipt dated 29.07.2006, a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,52,000/- was filed by respondent/plaintiff against appellant/defendant. It was pleaded in the plaint that vide pro-note and receipt dated 29.07.2006, the appellant/defendant took a loan of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e into consideration the evidence available on record. In support, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that once the Courts below were fully satisfied as regards the execution of Ex.D-1 i.e. receipt dated 29.07.2006 vide which amount obtained from respondent/plaintiff was returned to his brother, the same could not have been discarded simplicitor on the ground that it was not signed by the respondent-plaintiff and was not binding on his rights particularly in view of the deposition made by respondent/plaintiff while appearing as PW-1 wherein, he categorically stated that all the calculations with regard to the principal amount as well as interest were being done by his brother Balkar Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther Balkar Singh. He even further deposed that he along with his brother Balkar Singh were jointly calculating the principal amount as well as interest. He was not even specific and categoric while denying the receipt Ex.D-1 except for a vague and uncertain assertion in this regard. The relevant portion of cross-examination of Mukhtiar Singh is reproduced hereunder for reference: ..It is correct that I am doing the business of money lending. I do not have any license issued by the Agency of government for giving loan. I do not maintain any account books regarding money lending transactions i.e. loan given to the people. My brother was also doing the business of money lending. It is correct that all the calculation with regard to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it can easily be traced out that the amount of loan taken by the appellant-defendant was duly returned against the receipt Ex.D-1 which even binds the respondent/plaintiff as well. Based thereupon, it is apparent that the most relevant admissible evidence in the shape of deposition of plaintiff No.1 himself being PW-1 had not been taken into consideration by Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees which itself compells this Court to interfere with the same. Reliance in this regard can be made to the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandna Impex Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported as 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil ) 843. Relevant portion from paragraph 9 of the same is repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as required under Section 4 of the 1938 Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, from the deposition of PW-1 plaintiff himself it has been duly established on record that he was regularly and consistently lending money on interest and thus, was not merely a casual or occasional lender. Admittedly, in the present case respondent/plaintiff though running the business of money lending neither got himself registered under Section 4 of the 1938 Act nor even possesses any license under the said Act. Accordingly, the suit for recovery filed at his instance being based on pronote and a receipt itself was liable to be dismissed being not maintainable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard, I also find s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
