CG Civil Judge Mains 2023 Question Paper

Page 1 as text

Chhattisgarh Judicial Service Mains Examination 2023

CHHATTISGARH JUDICIAL SERVICE

2023 Mains Examination

Time: 3 hrs

Max. Marks: 100

Instructions: This question paper consists of three questions. Question No. 3 contains two

translations. Attempt all questions.

1. Read the following carefully and write judgement after framing necessary issues :

[40]

PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS: (i) Plaintiff ‘P’ filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- with interest,

with the pleadings, that on 10-11-2011 at Durg (Chhattisgarh), defendant ‘D’ who is a friend of his

brother ‘B’, demanded Rs. 30,000/- for some domestic work. Plaintiff, being assured of the

genuineness of the defendant’s need, gave him Rs. 30,000/- cash with condition that defendant shall

repay the loan on demand with simple interest @ 12% p.a. Defendant also executed one promissory

note Ex.P.1 duly stamped stipulating the aforesaid agreed term in presence of witness ‘W’ (P.W.3)

on the same date. After six months when plaintiff demanded the loan amount, defendant sought 15

days’ time. Even after 15 days defendant tried to avoid the repayment of loan amount.

Thereafter plaintiff ‘P’ had sent a registered A.D. Notice Ex.P.2 through his advocate on 02-06-

2012. In spite of receiving the notice defendant ‘D’ had neither replied nor repaid the loan amount

with interest. Therefore, plaintiff has prayed to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendant

‘D’ for the loan amount and interest accrued so far up to the date of suit, i.e. 10-08-2012 and also

prayed interest pendente lite and up to payment at contractual rate @ 12% p.a. and cost of the suit.

DEFENDANT’S PLEADINGS : (ii) Defendant ‘D’ has denied the pleadings of the plaintiff and

pleaded in his written statement that plaintiff’s brother is not his friend, he has not taken any loan of

Rs. 30,000/-, therefore payment of any interest thereon does not arise. He has not executed so-called

promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Promissory note is forged document as he signs in Hindi

whereas on promissory note his signatures are said to be in English. Further plaintiff is a

moneylender and plaintiff has not complied with the basic requirements of the Chhattisgarh

Moneylender Act, 1934. On this ground alone his suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the suit is

to be dismissed and special compensatory cost of Rs. 5,000/- as per Section 35A of C.P.C. be

imposed on plaintiff for such false suit.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE : (iii) Plaintiff has produced promissory note Ex. P.1, copy of notice Ex.

P.2 along with postal receipt Ex. P.3 and acknowledgement Ex. P.4. Plaintiff ‘P’ (P.W.1) has deposed

himself as P.W.1 and examined two other witnesses his brother ‘B’ (P.W.2) and witness of