Jawaharlal vs Ram Singh

Govind Mathur, J.—By judgment and decree dated 3.8.2007 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara decreed a suit in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,060/- The judgment and decree aforesaid came to be affirmed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara under the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2010.

While challenging the same by way of filing present second appeal it is contended by counsel for the Appellant that the suit preferred as per provisions of Order 37 CPC has been erroneously decreed by the court without examining the fact that whether Jawaharlal and Jawaharmal whose signatures are available on pronote are the same person. It is also submitted that the Plaintiff Respondent who was not having a money landing license or not was whether having any right to file suit or not.

I have examined the judgments impugned.

It is quite apparent that the courts below gave definite concurrent findings by examining all the evidence available on record that it was the Defendant only who borrowed the amount by putting his signatures on the pronote.

The other argument relating to competence of filing the suit was not at all raised by the Defendant Appellant before the trial court and even before the Appellate court and as such he cannot be now permitted to agitate that question.

The appeal, for the reasons mentioned above, is having no merit, thus, the same is dismissed.