- (1.) The Additional District. Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment dated 24.05.2008 accepted the appeal filed by the defendant- respondent (herein referred as the defendant') and while reversing the judgment & decree dated 17.08.2007 passed by the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') for recovery of Rs. 1,40,625/-.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that Sadhu Singh plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,40,625/- by claiming that on 08.11.2002. Jang Singh-defendant. after receiving the sum of Rs. 1.25.000/-. had executed a pronote and receipt in his favour Though the stipulated rate of interest was 2% per month, yet he claimed interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum.
(3.) The defendant contested the cause, wherein he denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt. He further alleged that no consideration was passed to him and he never agreed to pay interest. , as alleged by the plaintiff. While claiming no connections with the plaintiff, . it was alleged that the promissory note and receipt are fabricated documents. He further stated that actually, he used to sell his agricultural produce at the shop of Nasib Chand, Commission Agent, Dhuri and had dealings with him. Said Nasib Chand used to get thumb impressions/signatures of the agriculturists on the blank papers/pronotes in routine. The plaintiff was in close association with the said Nasib Chand and -he is a money lender. Said Commission Agent got filed different. recovery suits, including the suit for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- against one Mithu Singh and another suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- against Balwant Singh, which are pending in the Courts. The plaintiff was not in a position to advance Rs. 3,15,000/- to the above said persons, including the defendant.;