M. K. Sharma ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is against the judgmentand decree passed by Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi on 6. 6. 1974 in Suit No. 185/1969 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 16,320. 00 with costs andinterest pendente life and future at 6% per annum on the principal amount againstthe defendant. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the allegations made in the plaint are that on 20. 9. 1966 thedefendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00 from the plaintiff and in considerationthereof a pronote and receipt on the same date agreeing to repay the said amountof loan alongwith interest @ 1% per month. The plaintiff in his plaint had furtherprayed for a decree for another sum of Rs. 4,320. 00 towards interest at the aboverate, which according to the plaintiff is due from the defendant. ( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement, whereinhe denied to have executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff after receivingconsideration thereof. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned Trialcourt framed altogether six issues in the suit and thereafter proceeded to recordthe evidence produced on behalf of the parties. During the course of the hearingboth oral as well as documentary evidence were produced by the plaintiff and thedefendant in support of their respective cases. On consideration of the pleadingsof the parties and evidence on record the learned Trial Court by judgment anddecree dated 6. 6. 1974 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 16,320. 00with costs and interest pendente lite and future at 6% per annum and principalamount against the defendant. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by thelearned Trial Court the defendant has preferred this appeal. We may mention herethat during the course of the hearing of the aforesaid appeal before us thedefendant/appellant was represented by Mr. R. K. Watel, Advocate, whereas noneappeared on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Counsel appearingfor the appellant submitted before us that the signatures of the defendant wereobtained on blank pronote and receipt (Ex. P-l and P-2) in the circumstances as setout in the written statement and that no consideration had passed at the time ofobtaining the signautres of the defendant on the aforesaid blank pronote andreceipt. The learned Counsel appearingfor the appellant submitted before us that the signatures of the defendant wereobtained on blank pronote and receipt (Ex. P-l and P-2) in the circumstances as setout in the written statement and that no consideration had passed at the time ofobtaining the signautres of the defendant on the aforesaid blank pronote andreceipt. In support of his aforesaid submissions the learned Counsel for theappellant drew our attention to a number of circumstances. The first circumstanceto which our attention was drawn was the contradictory stand of the plaintiff inhis pleadings as well as in his evidence to the effect that plaintiff agreed to advancers. 12,000. 00 to the defendant on consideration of execution of a pronote andreceipt whereas the other case of the plaintiff is that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00 to the defendant on the faith of his assurance that he would execute amortgage deed in respect of his property within two days. Itself was purchasedagainst mortgage. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that thenexus of relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant having not beenestablished in the instant case there was no reason why the plaintiff would haveadvanced the money to the defendant, who hails from Punjab and totallyunknown to the plaintiff till atleast April 1966, so as to bring in an agreement tomortgage a property which according to the learned Counsel is totally unbeliev-able and un-trustworthy. Learned Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff hasfailed to give any satisfactory explanation as to why he had mentioned in thereceipt that he was also cheated by Shri Dutt. He further drew our attention to thecontents of Ex. D. W. II/2 which is the Investigation Report of Zimini No. 13 undersections 406/420 IPC. In the said report the Station House Officer, P. S. Nihal Singhwala, had stated that on investigation he has found that Harnam Singh had lodgeda false complaint and that according to him the case is. a bogues one. He however,stated in the said report that no transaction was found to have taken place and thata blind man would not have come to such a long distance for taking such a heavy amount. ( 6 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by thelearned Counsel for the appellant and in our view the said submissions appear to 71have strong force. ( 6 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by thelearned Counsel for the appellant and in our view the said submissions appear to 71have strong force. We find that the allegations made by the plaintiff at different stages, assubmitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, are contradictory in nature. We further find that at one place, according to the plaintiff, the defendant was in need of Rs. 12,000. 00 for payment to Shri Dutt, the vendor ofproperty No. A-76, Inderpuri, New Delhi, being the consideration of the saidproperty, whereas from the assertions made in the sale deed itself as well as from the statement of A. L. Bali, DW 5 and P. C. Verma, DW 3 it is proved that the defendant has already paid the entire consideration much prior to the execution ofthe sale deed in his favour by Shri Dutt and thus there was no occasion on the partof the defendant to borrow money from the plaintiff. It is thus apparent that as on20. 9. 1966 the defendant was not to pay Rs. 12,000. 00towards the sale consideration to Shri Dutt, on which day the sale deed was registered. ( 7 ) WE further find from the evidence on record that no nexus has beenestablished as to why the plaintiff would have advanced a considerable sum ofrs. 12,000. 00to the defendant who was aperson from Punjab and was admittedlyunknown to the plaintiff till the month of April 1966. No plausible explanation hascome forward from the plaintiff s side in the entire record. On perusal of theevidence of the plaintiff who examined himself in the suit we find that his evidenceis not at all trustworthy on the basis of which in our opinion a decree could bepassed in the instant case. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and findings arrived at byus, we set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court anddismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal stands allowed, and the judgment and decreepassed by the learned Trial Court in Suit No. 185/1969 stands set-aside and thesuit stands dismissed. No costs.