- (1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.4.2006, whereby the application for leave to contest, was allowed on the condition of furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.2 lacs.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,91,780/- i.e. a sum of Rs.1,11,500/- as principal amount and the remaining being the interest on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 10.10.2002. In the application for leave to defend, the defendant took up a stand that the pronote and the receipt are false, forged and fabricated documents and that the plaintiff obtained his signatures on blank pronote and receipt on the pretext that the same would be filled on availability of scribe and marginal witnesses and undertook that he would not mis-utilise the documents.
(3.) The learned trial Court has found that the pronote and receipt dated 10.10.1992 are scribed by Gurdial Singh and attested by Gurmit Singh and Malkiat Singh, and is signed by the defendant as well. It has categorically recorded the following finding:- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pronote and receipt dated 10.10.2002 scribed by Gurdial Singh son of Bhag Singh and attested by Gurmit Singh and Malkiat Singh and signed by Gurtej Singh defendant as well. Defendant has executed this pronote and receipt in dispute. The defendant has put forward blank paper theory, denial of consideration and manipulation of pronote and receipt in dispute. The figure shown is an old figures. Gurmit Singh witness has signed the document pronote and receipt with blank ink. Proper addresses of the scribe and complete and correct address of witnesses have not been mentioned in the pronote and receipt. Signatures of Gurtej Singh also exist on the reverse side of pronote and receipt and nothing has been written on the reverse of pronote and receipt, hence contestable issues and controversy exist which needs to be decided on the basis of evidence." ;