VINEY MITTAL - (1.) The plaintiff has lost before the first Appellate Court and has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,93,000/- on the basis of a pronote dated March 25, 1998, whereby it was claimed that he had loaned an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the defendant at the rate of 1.5% per month.
(2.) Since the aforesaid amount was not returned, therefore, the suit was filed. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant denied the execution of any pronote and receipt and also receipt of any amount. She pleaded that she had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against brother and nephews of the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff as a counter- blast filed by the defendant. It was further claimed that the defendant was selling her produce to the plaintiff and his brother and they had been getting the thumb impression of the defendant and her husband on blank papers.
(3.) The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence. It was found by the learned first Appellate Court that the defendant was in litigation with the brother of the plaintiff Bhima. He appeared as PW2 and supported the case of the plaintiff. It has also been noticed by the learned first Appellate Court that Bhim Sain is running a Commission Agent shop at Lehra and his brother was also running a shop of Commission Agent at the same place. In these circumstances, it has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that defendant was having dealings with the aforesaid Commission Agent and the pronote in question had been prepared by the plaintiff on some blank papers upon which the defendant had put her thumb impression. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.;