PART-III
Written statement in Money Suit:
1) The averments in para 1 of the plaint that this defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.100000/-(Rupees One lakh only) in order to perform the marriage of her sister from the plaintiff on 2.10.2009 at Shammer pet Village at his request and executed the suit promissory note is completely false.
2) This defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from anybody. This defendant neither borrowed any amount from anybody including from the plaintiff at any point of time, much less Rs.100000/-(Rupees One lakh only) on 2.10.2009. And he never executed suit pronote. The suit pronote is a forged and fabricated one. 3. The suit pro note is not supported by consideration.
3) It is absolutely false to allege that the plaintiff demanded this defendant to repay the alleged pro note debt and that this defendant is evading on one pretext or other. This defendant came to know of the suit debt only after the receipt suit summons. It is also absolutely false to allege that this defendant received the registered notice dt:12.11.2011. Hence, it is prayed that this defendant is not liable to pay the suit debt and that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.
PART-IV
Issues:
1. Whether the suit Promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether it is supported by consideration?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
PART-V
Trial in a Money Suit:
PW1’s:(Ram) Examination-in-chief: I am a resident of Shameerpet village. On 2.10.2009, defendant borrowed Rs1,00,000(Rupees One Lakh only) from me by executing EXA1 payable on demand with an undertaking to repay the same at rate of annual interest of 24%PM. The money is lent to defendant as he is my child hood friend and he is in urgent need of money to perform her sister’s marriage. The transaction took place in the presence of village Sarpanch by name Rajendra. Some time, later despite my repeated requests including by way of legal notice dated:11.11.2011, defendant failed to repay the same. However, there is no response from the defendant. As such, I filed this suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,00,000. ExA1 is the suit pronote executed by the defendant. ExA2 is the legal notice. ExA3 is the acknowledgment receipt.
Cross-Examination: It is true defendant is an advocate and having good money. Witness adds, very recently, he earned. I am an income tax assesse. I am working as an attorney in a Law firm. I did show in my returns about this transaction. In contra is not true. It is not true to suggest that as defendant is having sufficient money and he has no necessity to borrow money from me. It is not true to suggest that signature of the defendant is forged. It is not true to suggest that I obtained ExA3 by managing postal officials with the aid of Rajendra’s political clout. It is not true to suggest that having sore eye over the political and economic development of defendant in the village at the behest of Sarpanch ExA1 is manufactured and this false case.
PW2’s(Rajendra) Examination-in-chief: I am the Sarpanch of Shameer Pet village. On 2.10.2009, Defendant borrowed suit amount @24% per annum and the suit transaction took place in my presence only. I stood as witness to the transaction.
Cross Examination: I signed on the ExA1 subsequent to signature of defendant. It is true defendant is an advocate and having good money. It is not true to suggest that as defendant is having sufficient money and he has no necessity to borrow money from me. It is not true to suggest that signature of the defendant is forged. It is not true to suggest that so as to support PW1 evidence I am deposing false. It is not true to suggest that having sore eye over the economic development of defendant in the village at my behest ExP1 is manufactured and this false case is filed by PW1.
Dw1: (Krish): Examination-in-chief: I am resident of Shameerpet village. I didn’t borrow any amount of money from the PW1 much less than on 2.10.2009 to perform my sister marriage. I am an upcoming and serious legal practitioner and I possess sufficient assets to meet my needs. As such, PW2 who is the village Sarpanch, having had a sore eye over my development foisted this false case by forging my signatures and by manufacturing ExA1. ExA3 is also created by managing postal officials. I didn’t receive ExA2. PW1 at the behest of PW1 having had sore eye over my increasing influence in the village by creating ExA1 foisted this false case.
Cross Examination: It is true PW1 is my childhood friend. It is true in the month of November my sister marriage is performed. It true my sister marriage is performed in a grand manner. It is true in our caste there is a custom of giving cash and other articles to parents of male partner by parents of girl. It is true marriage of my sister is performed according to our caste customs. It is true I am the only son of my parents. It is true I didn’t file any document showing that I possess landed properties or bank balance. It is not true to suggest that I didn’t file the same as I don’t possess either movable or immovable assets. I undertake all responsibilities of my family including my sister’s marriage. It is true I am not an income tax assesse. I didn’t give any reply legal notice. It is not true to suggest that I received legal notice. It is true I didn’t complain to postal authorities for creation of ExA3. It is not true to suggest that as ExA3 is proper one, I didn’t take any action. It is true I didn’t venture to refer ExA1 for expert opinion. It is not true to suggest that as ExA1 is executed by me and I know that if I send it to expert, it will proved beyond doubt that I executed ExA1, I didn’t venture take such measure. It is not true to suggest that ExA1 is validly executed by me but to avoid the payment I constructed a fake story and deposing false.