L.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT Balkar Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENT -Plaintiff Amar Singh filed suit against Defendant -Appellant for recovery of Rs. 57,020/ - alleging that the Defendant, on 30.04.2004, borrowed Rs. 50,000/ - from the Plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.56% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but the Defendant failed to pay the loan and interest amount. Accordingly, Plaintiff claimed Rs. 50,000/ - as principal amount and Rs. 7,020/ - as interest on the aforesaid agreed rate of interest till filing of the suit. The Defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The Defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and having executed any pronote or receipt. It was pleaded that alleged pronote and receipt are result of fraud and are forged and fabricated documents, without consideration. The Defendant alleged that he was employed as Siri (crop sharer) by the Plaintiff on annual remuneration of Rs. 40,000/ - to be paid in two half yearly installments and he was paid Rs. 1,000/ - at the time of engagement and at that time, Plaintiff obtained Defendant's signatures on blank papers on the pretext of preparing deed for engaging the Defendant as crop -sharer. In August 2004, Defendant demanded money from the Plaintiff when Defendant's wife was to deliver child, but Plaintiff refused to pay the same. For want of treatment, newly born child died immediately after birth. The Defendant then stopped working with the Plaintiff in August 2004.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2008, decreed the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 50,000/ - with interest @ 1% per month from the date of pronote and receipt and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by the Defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, Defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.;