DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) The present appeal under Section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant - defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1989 whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed.
(2.) The facts relevant and necessary to the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 21.07.1986 against the defendant-appellant, inter alia averring that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 22,000 @ 12% interest per annum from him on 21.07.1983 for household and other sundry expenses. It has been the case of the plaintiffs that despite repeated requests by him, the defendant did not repay the loan. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 08.07.1986 demanding the loan amount and interest but still did not receive any amount from the defendant, which constrained him to file the aforesaid suit for the recovery of Rs. 29,920/-, being the principal amount and the interest accrued thereupon.
(3.) The defendant, in his written statement denied having taken any amount from the plaintiff or executing any promissory note in his favour. He averred that any such promissory note, if in existence, is a result of the plaintiff's deceitful act whereby he took the defendant's signatures on blank sheets of paper, when they contracted with each other for the sale of a piece of land, during which the plaintiff had later got a promissory note inscribed on it. He also objected to the very maintainability of the suit, while contending that since he was an agriculturist, the dispute at hand could be adjudicated only by the Debt Relief Court and the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to do the same.;