M. Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) CM -2138 -C -2013
(2.) AS the main case itself has been taken up for disposal, the application stands dismissed as infructuous. RSA -764 -2013 Against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the defendant who borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest @ 2% per month on execution of pronote and receipt dated 25.10.2005, was bound to pay said amount with interest and cost, rejecting the defence set up by the defendant that a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - was payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant preferred the present appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that Ex. D1, a receipt produced by the defendant would go to establish that a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the question of receipt of Rs. 2 lacs as adumbrated in the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 allegedly executed on 25.10.2005, does not arise for consideration. The case of the plaintiff is completely falsified by the receipt passed on by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant under Ex. D1, it is further submitted. The Courts below have not properly evaluated the impact of receipt Ex. D1 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.;