Money Suit

IN THE COURT OF YASH SHARMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS RAIPUR, DIST. RAIPUR

Civil Suit No. ___/2016
Ramesh S/o Rajesh Kumar Chouhan,
Age 44 Years, Occupation Wholesale Dealer of Stationery,
R/o Village Sondongri, Ring Road No. 1
Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (492001).
……..….
Plaintiff
Vs.
Rohit S/o Vinod Kumar Joshi,

Age 38 Years, Occupation Wholesale Cloth Dealer,
R/o House No. 548, Amadi Mandir
Durg, Chhattisgarh (491001).
………. Defendant
Judgment & Order

(Pronounced on 31-12-2016)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/- based on a
promissory note executed by the defendant, Rohit, in favor of
the plaintiff, Ramesh, on 01.01.2013 at Raipur. The plaintiff has
alleged that despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to
repay the amount, necessitating the present suit.
The plaintiff, a wholesale dealer of stationery, advanced a loan

of Rs. 90,000/- to the defendant on 01.01.2013, for which the
defendant executed a promissory note undertaking to repay the
amount within one year. The plaintiff, residing in Raipur, issued
a demand letter on 06.01.2014, to which the defendant
responded, acknowledging the debt and assuring repayment
within two years due to financial difficulties. However, no
payment was made, and the plaintiff filed the present suit on
01.10.2016 before this Court at Raipur.
The defendant in his written statement has raised the following

objections:
a) The Civil Court at Raipur has no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the suit.
b) The suit is barred by limitation, as it has been filed
beyond the prescribed period of three years from the date
of the promissory note.
c) He did not receive any loan amount and did not execute
the promissory note.
Issues for Determination:
Based on the pleadings, the following issues arise for
determination:
1. Whether the Civil Court at Raipur is having territorial
jurisdiction to try the present suit u/s 20(c) of Code of
Civil Procedure?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation u/s 18 of
Limitation Act, 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963) and Article
19 and 35 of Schedule appended to the above Act?
3. a) Whether the plaintiff advanced the loan of Rs.
90,000/- on 1-1-2013 at Raipur?
b) Whether the defendant executed the promissory note
in favor of plaintiff on 1-1-2013 at Raipur?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
Brief Account of Evidence:

 The plaintiff produced the original promissory note
(marked as P-1), which was examined by a handwriting
expert (Mr. Avinash Jha). The expert’s report (marked as P-
2) confirmed the authenticity of the defendant’s signature.
 The plaintiff also examined two independent witnesses
who were present at the time of execution of the promissory
note, namely:
1. Mr. Ram S/o Manohar Chaubey, Age 29,
Occupation – Cashier, R/o Kabir Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (492001). (Hereinafter referred to as
PW- 1).
2. Mr. Swapnil S/o Yogesh Jain, Age 34, Occupation
– Retailer of Stationary, R/o Kabir Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (492001). (Hereinafter referred to as
PW- 2).
Both PW-1 & Pw-2 corroborated the plaintiff’s claim and
further deposed that Ext. P-1 is the original promissory note
signed by the defendant in their presence, and thereafter the
plaintiff handed over Rs. 90,000/- in cash to the defendant.
 Additionally, the plaintiff submitted documentary evidence,
including correspondence between the parties where the
defendant acknowledged the debt on 06.01.2014 (marked as
P-3).
The defendant, on the other hand, did not produce any

substantial evidence to refute the claims and merely denied
execution of the promissory note. The court found the
plaintiff’s evidence to be credible and consistent.
Findings and Reasons:

Issue No. 1.: Territorial Jurisdiction
The promissory note was executed at Raipur, and the creditor
(plaintiff) resides in Raipur. As per Section 20 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, a suit can be filed at the place where the
cause of action arose, either wholly or in part. Since the
execution of the promissory note is a crucial part of the cause
of action, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Hence, the objection regarding jurisdiction is dismissed.
Issue No. 2: Limitation

As per Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit based on a
promissory note payable on demand must be filed within three
years from the date on which the amount becomes due. In this
case, the promissory note was executed on 01.01.2013, making
it due for repayment by 01.01.2014. However, the defendant, in
his written reply dated 06.01.2014, acknowledged the debt and
assured payment within two years. This acknowledgment, as
per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extends the limitation
period by another three years, making the suit valid if filed on
or before 06.01.2017. The present suit was filed on 01.10.2016,
within the extended limitation period. Hence, the suit is not
time-barred.
Issue No. 3: Execution of Promissory Note and Loan Receipt
The plaintiff has produced the original promissory note signed
by the defendant. The defendant’s denial of execution must be
tested against Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, which presumes consideration unless disproved. The
plaintiff has also examined two witnesses who were present at
the time of execution, both of whom corroborated the plaintiff’s
claim. The defendant has failed to produce any cogent evidence
to rebut this presumption. In light of this, the execution of the
promissory note and receipt of Rs. 90,000/- by the defendant
stands proved.
Issue No. 4: Entitlement to Reliefs
As the execution of the promissory note is established and the
suit is within limitation, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.
90,000/- along with an interest of 12% per annum from 01-01-
2014 till realization.
In light of the findings above, the suit is decreed in favor of the
plaintiff. The defendant is directed to pay the sum of Rs.
90,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 01.01.2013 till
the realization of the full amount. The plaintiff is also entitled
to costs of the suit.
Order
Claim for Rs. 90,000/-
THIS suit coming on this Thirty First day of December 2016
for final disposal before Shri Yash Sharma, Judicial Magistrate
First Class Raipur in the presence of ..............................for the
plaintiff and of.................for the defendant; It is ordered that
the defendant (Rohit Joshi) do pay to the plaintiff (Ramesh
Chouhan) the sum of Rs. 90,000/- with interest thereon at the
rate of 12% per cent. per annum from 01.01.2013 to the date of
realization of the said sum and do also pay Rs. ...................., the
costs of this suit, with interest thereon at the rate of ……. per
cent. per annum from this date to the date of realization.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this 31st day of
December 2016
SHRI YASH SHARMA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (RAIPUR)

Money Suit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Money Suit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Money Suit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF YASH SHARMA, JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS RAIPUR, DIST. RAIPUR

Rohit S/o Vinod Kumar Joshi,

Judgment & Order

The plaintiff, a wholesale dealer of stationery, advanced a loan

The defendant in his written statement has raised the following

Brief Account of Evidence:

The defendant, on the other hand, did not produce any

Findings and Reasons:

Issue No. 2: Limitation

SHRI YASH SHARMA

You might also like