Chhattisgarh Civil Judge 2020 Mains Judgment Analysis (Civil)

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25000 on the basis of a pronote dated 22.10.2009. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a rice mill owner. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 25000 from him for his business and executed a pronote. Ex. P1, dated 22.10.2009, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The said amount of Rs. 25000 was paid to the defendant by way of cash by the plaintiff. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not pay the amount, hence, notice dated 22.5.2012 Ex. P2 was issued. The defendant had received the notice. Even after receipt of the said notice, the defendant has not paid any amount. 

 

The defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff was running a chit fund in which defendant had subscribed some chits and availed chit amount in the beginning. Before making the payments, the plaintiff insisted him (i.e., defendant) to execute pronotes towards security for repayment of the balance chit installments and obtained defendant’s signature not only on the suit pronote but also on other three pronotes. After the discharge of the chit amount, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the pronotes, but he did not return the same on the ground that the pronotes were is the custody of his partner Sampath. According to the defendant one of the said pronotes was used for filing this suit. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 

The plaintiff examined himself and proved Exs. P1 to P3. The plaintiff deposed that on 22.10.2009, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 25000 and executed the suit pronote Ex. P1, dated 22.10.2009 which bears the signature of the defendant. Ex. P2 is the notice issued by the plaintiff through his lawyer calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount and Ex. P3 is the acknowledgement. 

The defendant examined himself. He deposed that the suit pronote and other pronotes were executed as security for repayment of the chit amount payable by him to the plaintiff. Plaintiff was conducting the chit unauthorisedly. Though the amount payable towards the chit was in fact fully paid, the plaintiff has not returned the pronote, including the suit pronote, executed by him. Ex. D1, dated 27.5.2012 is the reply notice to Ex. P2, Ex. D2 is the acknowledgment of the plaintiff. 

On behalf of the plaintiff is has been argued that the defendant has admitted his signature on Ex. P1, pronote. Even assuming that the suit pronote was executed as security for repayment of the chit amount and when according to the defendant the entire chit amount was paid, the defendant has not chosen to call upon the plaintiff to return the said pronotes; that even in reply of Ex. D1, the defendant has not stated that the entire chit amount payable by him to the plaintiff had been said in full. That no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that the pronote was executed as security for repayment of chit amount. The defendant has miserably failed to prove that the suit pronote was executed as security for repayment of chit amount. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree sought for by him.

On behalf of the defendant, it has been argued that he did not receive Rs. 25000 as alleged by the plaintiff and his signatures were obtained by the plaintiff in blank pronotes as security for repayment of chit amounts. He has paid the entire amount due towards the chit transaction but the plaintiff and his friend Sampath refused to return the suit pronote to him.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 25000 on the basis of a pronote executed by the defendant on 22.10.2009. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 25000 from him for his business and executed the pronote, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the suit pronote and other pronotes were executed as security for repayment of the chit amount payable by him to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has examined himself and proved the pronote (Ex. P1), notice (Ex. P2), and acknowledgement (Ex. P3). The defendant, on the other hand, has examined himself and denied the plaintiff’s allegations. He has also stated that the suit pronote was used for filing this suit, and the plaintiff and his friend Sampath refused to return the same to him.

The first issue to be decided is whether the suit pronote was executed as security for the chit amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant has contended that the pronote was executed as security for repayment of the chit amount. However, he has not produced any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the court may not accept the defendant’s contention without any corroborative evidence. Moreover, the defendant has not raised any objection to the plaintiff’s unauthorized conduct of the chit fund. Therefore, the court may not accept the defendant’s contention that he executed the pronote as security for the chit amount payable by him to the plaintiff. 

The second issue to be decided is whether the defendant has admitted his liability to repay the amount mentioned in the pronote. The plaintiff has argued that the defendant has admitted his signature on the pronote. Even assuming that the suit pronote was executed as security for repayment of the chit amount, the defendant has not chosen to call upon the plaintiff to return the said pronotes. Therefore, the court may infer that the defendant has not disputed his liability to repay the amount mentioned in the pronote.

The third issue to be decided is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree sought for by him. The plaintiff has proved the execution of the pronote by the defendant and his failure to repay the amount despite repeated demands. The defendant, on the other hand, has not produced any evidence to prove his contention that the suit pronote was executed as security for the chit amount payable by him to the plaintiff. Moreover, he has not disputed his liability to repay the amount mentioned in the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff may be entitled to the decree sought for by him.

In light of the above analysis, the court may hold that the suit pronote was not executed as security for the chit amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court may also hold that the defendant has not disputed his liability to repay the amount mentioned in the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff may be entitled to the decree sought for by him.