- (1.) The present R.S.A has been preferred by Bishamber Dayal and Kundan Lal, appellants to assail the validity of the judgment and decree dated 3.2.1983 by which the then learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Rewari, and ordered the decretal of the suit in favour of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.4,000/- with costs.
(2.) The plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for the decreed relief on the following allegations: It is a registered partnership firm, which is into the business of purchase and sale of utensils. Defendants- appellants were also into that business. On 26.11.1973, defendants- appellants borrowed a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent for the purposes of business. In order to document the transaction, defendant- appellant No.1, Bishamber Dayal executed a memorandum in favour of the plaintiffrespondent firm. That memorandum also contained a promise for repayment with interest at the rate of Re.1 per cent per month. The plaintiff-respondent was impelled to file the suit when defendants- appellants did not pay the amount despite various verbal requests and a registered notice dated 30.8.1976.
(3.) Appellants' plea was that the impugned document was not a memorandum but a pronote which was inadmissible in evidence as it had not been duly and properly executed. Defendant- appellant No.1- Bishamber Dayal conceded having executed that document. The plea raised in this context was that it was not a cash transaction but that the memorandum was brought into being to document a satta transaction.;