R. CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. R. CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The original suit filed by the present respondent against the present appellant in the Court of the learned XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") in O.S.No.3280/2002 for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 34,000/- with interest thereupon came to be decreed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 12-12-2011. It is against the said judgment and decree, the defendant in the Trial Court has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the defendant was the colleague of plaintiff's father who had approached the plaintiff through his father for financial assistance. Considering the same, the plaintiff gave a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- on 11-07-1999 to the defendant in which regard, the defendant had executed an On- Demand Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to repay the said loan within three months from the date of the loan. Since the defendant did not repay the loan amount despite the demand made by the plaintiff, a legal notice dated 17-10-2001 was sent to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff demanding the repayment of the loan. Since the defendant did not meet the demand made therein, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit for recovery of the loan amount of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- with interest thereupon.

(3.) In response to the suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his Written Statement. The defendant admitted that the father of the plaintiff was his colleague and that both of them were working in NIMHANS. However, the defendant stated that he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff, as such, question of he seeking any financial assistance from the plaintiff would not arise. He specifically denied that he had availed hand loan of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed an On-Demand Promissory Note in that regard. He has stated that he received the legal notice, but stated that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is a false claim, as such, deserves to be dismissed.