IN THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDJE FEROZPUR

Name of the appealant R/O village Alliana, Tehsil Fazilka District Ferozpur  …………………………………………….Appellant / Defendant

                           Versus

Name of the non appealantResi Of village Alliana Fazilka District Ferozpur      ……………………………………………………Respondent/Plaintiff

Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 26-04-05 passed by the court of Smt Davinder Pal Kaur Bedi Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.div) Fazilka where by Ld.lower court wrongly and illegally decreed the suit of respondent /plaintiff.

Claim in Appeal :-

                For accepting the appeal of the appellant and setting aside the impugned judgment and decree under appeal with costs throughout and for dismissing the suit of respondent /plaintiff with costs throughout.

R/Sir

     The appellant submits the following grounds of appeal.

1.  That the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Lower court is against the law and facts on the file and the same is liable to be set aside in instant appeal.

2.  That finding of the Ld .lower court on issue No.1 as pronounced  by the ld. lower court is not sustainable as it has been fully proved on record that the alleged pronote and receipt are  forged and fabricated documents and have been procured by the respondent in connivance with each other . The appellant also filed a criminal complaint against the respondent including others, in witch they are facing trail in the learned illaqa Magistrate. It has been fully proved on record that the respondent is munim of _________ ,Commission Agent and all the accounts have been maintained by the respondent and Suresh Kumar. The appellant was having dealings with Commission Agent and used to sell his agriculture crops at the shop of the said commission agency and during the dealings of the appellant with said firm, present respondent and ________have obtained the signatures of the appellant on some blank papers/pronote form with fraud. Both during the period of dealings have obtained signatures of the appellant on some blank papers and register in good faith by fraud and falsely prepared /fabricated two promissory notes of 50000/- each in favor of respondent and above said Suresh Kumar where as the respondent had no need to borrow such huge amount or to  invest the same anywhere . The appellant has also filed criminal complaints under section 420 IPC against the respondent as well as Suresh Kumar which is still pending.

3.  That pronote Ex .P2 and receipt Ex. P3 are tempered documents. There is cutting /tempering on the dates of pronote and receipt and the same amount to material alterations to which the appellant was not a party or signature and thus the promissory note as well as receipt are void under section 87 of the Negotiable instrument act .The said cutting /tempering has not been signed by any party or scriber of the said document . The learned lower court has wrongly held that no prejudice has been caused by such cutting to the appellant. The cutting/tempering of dates of pronote and receipt is question without obtaining the signatures of the executant are material alterations and as such cannot be relied upon. The cutting has been effected without the consent of the appellant. The Ld. lower court has wrongly held that it cannot be presumed that date has been changed on the pronote and receipt later on without the consent of the appellant . Where as it has been fully proved on the record that the said cutting /tempering has been effected without the consent of the appellant. The said judgement in “Natthu Lal & others vs Mrs Gurmeet kour ,AIR 1940 ,prevy council is not applicable in the present case since the appellant has not admitted the execution of the pronote and receipt in question.

4.  That the finding of the Ld. lower court on issue No2 is not sustainable. When the alleged pronote and receipt are false and frivolous tempered documents then the question of the payment of any interest by the appellant to the respondent does not arise at all. So the entire observations, returned by the Ld. Lower court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5.  That the finding of the Ld. lower court on issue No.3 is wrong and liable to be reversed .It has been fully proved on record that the suit is not maintainable in the present form , but Ld. lower court has not considered this point and as such the entire observation of the Ld .lower court are vitiated .

6.  That the impugned judgement and decree seem to has been passed by ld. lower court in hot and haste manners without considering the actual facts proved on record which has jeo-paradiced  to the valuable rights of the appellant .

7.  That value of the appeal for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction of this court Hon,able has been fixed for Rs 86000/-on witch court fee of Rs 3222.40 is being affixed with the appeal.

8.  That the appeal is with in limitation.

                                                   Hence it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned judgement and decree may kindly be set aside and suit of the Respondent/plaintiff  may kindly be dismissed with costs as prayed for.

Place Fazilka

Dated ---------

Submitted by:- Dalip Singh S/O Nagar Singh S/O Ram Singh R/o alliana, Tehsil fazilka ,Distt .Fzr. Through counsel

 RAJESH KASRIJA

Advocate (FZK)