Unfilled Pronote wrongly filled-in by the money lender
Jai
(Querist) 09 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
An unfilled pronote has been given to a person and barrowed Rs.30,000 in the year 2001. The lender has changed the year of the pronote to 2005 and filled Rs.1,20,000.He has put the case against me that I have to give him Rs.1,20,000 + interest(18%).
Now, I want to know the pronote validity and whether the pronote date and year can be changed by money lender or not?
When I went for first hearing, the matter was compromised by the two sides advocates infront of the judge amounting to Rs.75,000/ to be paid to the money lender without any kind of judgement by the judge. Acceptance letter was signed by the money lender only not by me.
I request you all kindly to guide me to give the actuals to the money lender helping the money borrowed (myself).
* In pronote, the last sentence printed is " Date at ooty,this 30th day of April 'One thousand nine hundred'(printed material was stroke out by the money lender)2005(written by the money lender). Whether this is a material alteration or not?
* From the above it is believed that the pronote was purchased before the year 2000.
* Pronote was written by the money lender only and no witnesses signed.
* The empty pronote was signed and given to the money lender along with our assest's documents in money urgency in the year 2001. But the money lender filled the pronote on 30-04-2005 and filed the case in 17-12-2007. He has mentioned the interest rate of 18%.
* Our lawer is insisting us to pay 75,000 in one lot for compromise in short period of 7 days.
* Since we are poor family, I request you all to guide me to win the case.
Thank you one and all in the lawyers club.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 February 2010
If your counsel has signed the compromise before the court then you have no option but to obey it but if it has still not been compromised then you can contest and defend the case on the grounds you mentioned like distortion etc.
Jai
(Querist) 09 February 2010
Thank you for your valuable reply sir.
Some more points are expected from the experts.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Expert) 10 February 2010
A compromise signed by the counsel alone without the signatures of the party to the suit is not a valid compromise.
Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC provides:
"Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit.
Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.
Explanation-An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule."
