A Document Can Be Treated As A Promissory Note Only When It Is Promissory Both In Form & Intent: Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates

The Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasized that a document can be treated as a promissory note only when it is promissory both in form and intent. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas remarked that if the indebtedness is acknowledged in the document that any defined sum of money is payable on demand, only then the document can be said to be a promissory note.

A first appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code arising out of the judgment of Additional District Judge, Dhamatari, dismissing the suit filed for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 against the defendants. In return for the amount given by the plaintiff, the defendant had handed over a cheque of the same amount and a written promissory note. However, owing to a sudden accident, the defendant died. After almost a month, the plaintiff requested the return of the money the deceased had taken, but since then, he has not gotten the money back.

On sending the cheque for clearance, it was returned, and thus a civil suit was filed before the ADJ for recovery of the said amount.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had not led any evidence to substantiate the contents of the documents, and a merely self-serving statement cannot prove the contents of the document. It noted that the plaintiff should have taken steps, namely: (i) by calling the person in whose presence the document was signed or written; or (ii) by calling a handwriting expert; or (iii) by calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document has supposed to be signed or written; or (iv) by comparing in Court the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signature or writing, or v) any other circumstantial evidence.

The Court observed that any of the above exercises had not been carried out by the plaintiff, which is a violation of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on Smt. Rami Bai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, where it was held that.

"It is Section 67 which would apply. Section 67 does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. Thus, the signatures may be proved in any one or more of the following modes."

It is well settled that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence, and the weakness of the defendant is not a ground to allow the plaintiff's suit, the Court said.

The Court dismissed the appeal noting that neither the document has been proved under law nor it is a promissory note as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Case Title: Khemchand Jain v. Smr Bharti Moolwani and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 37

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order