R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THE delay of 35 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
(2.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, who dismissed the appeal of the present defendant Pritam Dass while affirming the judgment and decree dated 9.8.1995 passed by the trial Court which decreed the money suit for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- with proportionate costs. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Initially plaintiff Ajaib Singh filed a money suit for a sum of Rs. 32,640/- including interest at the rate of Rs. 1 per cent per month from 13.6.1987 to 12.6.1990 on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 13.6.1987 and the case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that defendant took a sum of Rs. 24,000/- by way of loan for domestic and agricultural purposes on 13.6.1987 and executed a pronote and receipt on the same very day in his favour. The defendant agreed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the execution of the pronote and receipt. It was also agreed that if the defendant returned the amount in question within one month, then the plaintiff would not be entitled to any interest. It has been further alleged by the plaintiff that in spite of the demand made by him, the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence this suit. The suit was contested by the defendant. He stated that the plaintiff was a money lender and that the suit is barred by time. On merits, the stand of the defendant was the Mohtmim of the property of Dera, but the Dera had mortgaged the property in favour of the son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff acted on behalf of his son and no cash transaction took place on 13.6.1987. Actually on that day the defendant paid the amount of the mortgage money executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff received the amount and executed a receipt on 13.6.1987, which is signed by Darshan Singh and Mohan Singh, who were the attesting witnesses. It was further alleged by the defendant that the receipt under reference was scribed by Gurmukh Singh and the amount as detailed in the plaint related to the mortgage. The plaintiff even admitted this fact at the time of making his statement before the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade, Samrala on 25.10.1989. With this broad defence, the defendant has prayed for the dismissal of suit.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed a re-joinder to the written statement in which he reiterated his allegations by denying those of the written statement.;