- (1.) The defendants have obtained the loan from Punjab National Bank. The loan account had been clarified as a non-performing assets and the bank had proceeded to recover the dues. In the process the bank had assigned its debt to ARCIL (Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited ) and the said ARCIL was proceeding to recover the dues from the defendants. The defendants approached the plaintiff with a request to advance him a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs on such mutually agreeable terms acceptable to both the parties. Based on the stipulation dated 27 th July, 2006 plaintiff. gave advance of Rs. 6 lakhs to the defendants. On behalf of the defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 issued post dated cheque and promissory note in connection with the said loan amount. Both the post dated cheques and the promissory note were of dated 27 th August,2006.
(2.) The memorandum of understanding dated 17 th May, 2006 entered into between Usha Martin Finance Limited and defendants was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendants issued a cheque of Rs. 48,000/- on 12 th September, 200 in favour of the plaintiff which was subsequently dishonoured. A demand notice addressing the defendants was issued by the plaintiff through her learned advocate. The defendants have not repaid the loan amount and the interest thereto. So the suit. This Court by it s order dated 7 th December, 2010 appointed Mr. Om Prakash Dubey, learned advocate as the Commissioner to record the evidence of the plaintiff. Learned Advocate Commissioner recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and submitted his report on 5 th January, 2011.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has placed the case of the plaintiff and the evidence on record. Perused the exhibited documents and the evidence of Jagdamba Tekriwal recorded on commission. The evidence supports the case of the plaintiff. It remained unchallenged as it is an undefended suit. There is no reason to impeach the credit of the evidence of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is thus, proved.;