- (1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1989 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, Barnala wherein the appeal of the defendant was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,000/- out of which Rs. 9600/- was the principal amount and Rs. 2400/- was the interest thereon. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 9600/- and had agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt in her favour which had been scribed by one Bindra Ban petition writer. The said pronote and receipt were signed by the defendant and the receipt was attested by Randhir Singh and Basakhi Mal. Accordingly, it was pleaded that interest on the loan amount came to Rs. 2400/- and that the plaintiff had served a notice on the defendant and also asked him to repay the loan but he has failed to make any payment. In the defence, the defendant has denied having obtained any loan on 22.10.1982 and had stated that the pronote and receipt are forged documents and the plaintiff who was money lender could not sue without obtaining the money lending license.
(3.) Replication was filed by the plaintiff controverting the allegations and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint, on the basis of which the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the defendant executed a pronote and receipt dated 22.10.82 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 9600/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 2% per month? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt are without consideration? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender if so its effect? OPD 4. Relief.;