HEMANT GUPTA - (1.) THE defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.18,300/- (Rs.12,000/- as principal amount and interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. amounting to Rs.6300/- as pre suit period) was decreed in the sum of Rs.16,200/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as pendente lite and future interest. THE appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent alleged that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 18.07.1982 and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. THE defendant has executed a writing in the bahi entry in favour of the plaintiff. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery, as mentioned above. On the other hand, the defendant denied borrowing of any amount from the R.S.A.No.769 of 1991 2 plaintiff and also that he ever signed any bahi entry. THE parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.12,000/- from the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the defendant had promised to pay interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 per cent per month? OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is a money lender as alleged? OPD 4.Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendant is entitled to special costs? If so how much? 5.Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD 6.Relief. To prove bahi entry (Ex.P1), the plaintiff himself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and also examined Sis Ram, the attesting witness, as PW-2. Whereas, the defendant appeared as his own witness as DW-1 and also examined Inder Singh, Namberdar as DW-2 and Ram Bilas as DW-3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found that the defendant admitted his signatures on the vakalatnama dated 25.09.1985 though denied signatures on bahi entry (Ex.P1) and acknowledgement receipt (Ex.P3). The Court has examined the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures itself and found that the disputed and admitted signatures are of one and the same person. The evidence of the defendant was found to be unreliable as that of a hear-say evidence. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. The first Appellate Court, as mentioned above, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that R.S.A.No.769 of 1991 the plaintiff has not examined any hand-writing expert to prove the signatures of the defendant on the bahi entry. It is also argued that there is no agreement to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Therefore, grant of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. contravenes Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;