- (1.) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that Mohinder Kumar Aggarwal son of Kishan Chand respondent-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff"), filed the suit for a decree of recovery of Rs. 89540/- (Rs. 66,000/- principal plus Rs. 23,540/- interest) against Jagpal Singh son of Boondi Ram appellant-defendant (for short "the defendant"), on the basis of pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt dated 12.8.1980 (Ex.P2).
(2.) The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, denying the execution of pronote, receipt and consideration amount, in pursuance thereof. The pronote and receipt were termed to be forged & fabricated documents. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- 1. Whether the defendant executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the plaintiff as alleged OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt were executed without consideration OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and to what amount OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender and has not obtained money lending licence, if so, its effect OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff did not send six monthly accounts to the defendant, if so, to what effect OPD 6. Relief.;