Professional Documents
Culture Documents
89/2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU SINGH, ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), MOHINDERGRH.
--Plaintiff.
Versus.
--Defendants.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree
(Himanshu Singh)
Addl. Civil Judge (SD)
UID No. HR – 0300 Mohindergarh/19.05.2018
Jagdish Parsad Vs Naresh Kumar (Died) through LRs & others CS No. 89/2017
2
50,000/- + ₹ 7,000/- interest).
2. The fact of the case are that Naresh Kumar, husband of defendant
No. 1A, father of defendants No. 1B to 1E and son of defendant No. 2 has
died and the present defendants inherited his estate. It is the case of the
executing the said pronote and receipt the contents of the same were read over
Kumar after admitting the contents of the said pronote to be true signed the
same in presence of the witnesses and handed over the said pronote and
averred that defendants have failed to make the payment of the said amount
plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 09.12.2016 through his
despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated
04.07.2017.
(Himanshu Singh)
Addl. Civil Judge (SD)
UID No. HR – 0300 Mohindergarh/19.05.2018
Jagdish Parsad Vs Naresh Kumar (Died) through LRs & others CS No. 89/2017
3
himself as PW-3 and further examined Subhash as PW-1, Sanoj as PW-2 and
Paramvir clerk of Sh. SS Yadav, Advocate as PW-4. Plaintiff also relied upon
following documents:-
Ex. PW4/B to
Ex. PW4/H to
Ex. PW4/M Registered Ads received back with the report of refusal.
filing present suit. To prove his case plaintiff got examined PW-1 Subhash
and PW-2 Sanoj, who are attesting of pronote and receipt Ex. PW1/B & Ex.
PW1/C, have categorically stated that pronote and receipt were executed by
(Himanshu Singh)
Addl. Civil Judge (SD)
UID No. HR – 0300 Mohindergarh/19.05.2018
Jagdish Parsad Vs Naresh Kumar (Died) through LRs & others CS No. 89/2017
4
deceased defendant Naresh Kumar from plaintiff in their presence and after
the same correct appended his signatures on pronote and receipt and witnesses
himself who almost reiterated the contents of plaint and deposed that on
month and executed pronote and receipt Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/C in his
favour but despite demand and service of legal notice he failed to return the
interest 2% per month and on the date of filing present suit, amount ₹
57,000/- i.e. ₹ 50,000/- principal sum and ₹ 7,000/- being interest found
clear that present suit has been filed on 25.01.2017 whereas pronote and
receipt were executed on 21.06.2016, thus suit is well within limitation period
of three years. The entire oral coupled with documentary evidence adduced by
plaintiff has gone unrebutted and un-challanged and there is no reason for this
court to disbelieve the same, hence plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of
(Himanshu Singh)
Addl. Civil Judge (SD)
UID No. HR – 0300 Mohindergarh/19.05.2018
Jagdish Parsad Vs Naresh Kumar (Died) through LRs & others CS No. 89/2017
5
7. In view of aforesaid discussion, suit filed by plaintiff succeeds
and same is hereby decreed ex-parte with costs for recovery of a sum of ₹
57,000/- i.e. ₹ 50,000/- principal sum and ₹ 7,000/- being interest against
defendants to the extent of the estate inherited by them being LRs of deceased
Naresh Kumar along-with pendente lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of institution of suit till realization of decreetal amount. Decree
Note: All pages of this Judgment have been checked and signed by me.
(Himanshu Singh),
Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.)
UID No. HR – 00300 Mohindergarh.
(Chinoo) 19.05.2018
(Himanshu Singh)
Addl. Civil Judge (SD)
UID No. HR – 0300 Mohindergarh/19.05.2018