1993 (4) TMI 339 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Allowed: Court Dismisses Suit Due to Inauthentic Promissory Note, Illegal Communication Not Privileged.

Gurunanak Provisions Stores Versus Dulhonumal Savanmal and Ors.

The HC quashed the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 1007 of 1973, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff failed to ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 1007 of 1973.2. Execution and authenticity of the promissory note.3. Applicability of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding privileged communication.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Judgment and Decree:The appellant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in favor of the respondent (original plaintiff) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court had ruled that the defendant executed the questioned promissory note and was liable to pay the amount with interest at 6% per annum. However, upon examination, the High Court found that the trial court's observations regarding the execution of the promissory note were not proper and sustainable. The trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record.2. Execution and Authenticity of the Promissory Note:The plaintiff claimed Rs. 5,350 based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant on 16-8-1972. The defendant contended that he had not executed the promissory note and alleged forgery by the plaintiff, who reused signed revenue stamps from a satisfied promissory note. The High Court found that the four revenue stamps on the questioned promissory note were affixed after the defendant's earlier signature, indicating reuse. The evidence, including the testimony of the defendant and advocate Mr. Giriani, supported the defendant's claim that the promissory note was not genuine. The High Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note, and the defendant successfully showed its lack of authenticity.3. Applicability of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:The evidence of advocate Mr. Giriani, who testified that the promissory note was blank with reused revenue stamps when shown to him by the plaintiff, was crucial. The High Court examined whether this testimony was protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with privileged professional communications. Section 126 protects communications made in the course of professional employment unless made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or showing that a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of employment. The High Court found that the plaintiff approached Mr. Giriani with an intent to obtain a decree based on a non-genuine promissory note, constituting an illegal purpose. Therefore, the protection under Section 126 was lost, and Mr. Giriani's testimony was admissible.Conclusion:The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and decree, allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit with no order as to costs. The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note, and the defendant demonstrated its lack of authenticity. The communication between the plaintiff and advocate Mr. Giriani was not protected under Section 126 due to its illegal purpose.