that he had borrowed some amount from one Sri Ashok who had filed a suit for recovery which was decreed and in compliance of the same, the respondent was repaying the amounts to him in installments. When the respondent himself is a debtor, it becomes highly doubtful about his capacity to pay any amount to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that he had paid the money to the petitieonr for any medical or other extreme urgency. But, on the other hand, it is his specific case that the amount was paid by him to the petitioner for purchasing a car. The respondent himself did not have sufficient means for the purpose of performing his daughter's marriage and if he had borrowed the amount from the bank for the said purpose, it again becomes very doubtful that he could have lent any money to the petitioner for purchase of a car and that too when he himself is a debtor having suffered a decree in a suit for recovery of money, wherein he was repaying the money in installments. In addition to the same, it is also brought on record that the background of the respondent is not clean and he was involved in a case where enquiry was held against him with regard to the allegation that he along with three others had forged the signature of the Superintendent of Police and misused the money.
