Shanti Swarup Dhavan, J. - (1.)This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Fourth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur for the recovery of Ra. 2412 on the basis of a promissory note The plaintiff firm Messrs Nanak Chand Shadi Ram alleged that it had business transactions with the defendant appellant B. R. Sharma and that on 13 -7 -1963 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 2412 in favour of the plaintiff firm. The appellant admitted the execution of the note and the receipt but alleged that these documents were obtained from him on the understanding that they would be shown to the other parties for the purpose of proving that the plaintiff firm had suffered losses He contended that the note was without consideration. He also raised a number of technical pleas - -namely, that the plaint had not been properly framed, instituted and signed by the plaintiff firm according to law.
(2.)The trial court disbelieved the defendant's story that he was induced to sign the note and the receipt without receiving any consideration, but it dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint had not been properly signed in accordance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 C.P.C. and had not been duly verified in accordance with Order 6 Rule 15 C.P.C On appeal the learned Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court that the defendant's story that he had been induced to sign the note and the receipt without consideration was untrue, but he reversed the lower court's finding that the suit had not been properly filed or that the plaint had not been properly verified. He allowed the appeal and passed a decree for Rs. 2412 with costs and interest future and pendente lite. The defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.
(3.)Mr. S. N. Agarwal holding the brief of Mr. M. N Shukla contended that the finding of the lower appellate court that the respondent's suit was properly filed and that the plaint was properly verified is erroneous.