On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the finding recorded by the learned courts below are plain and simple findings of fact, wherein it was opined that the document in question was not a Hundi but merely a receipt. He further referred to the stand of the appellantsdefendants in the written statement filed in response to the plaint, where it was categorically stated that alleged writing (Ex. P21) dated 1.5.1998 does not fall within the definition of documents “Hundi”, “pronote” or “bill of exchange”. However, before the lower appellate court, the stand was sought to be changed by stating that the document in question was a “Hundi” and the same was not admissible in evidence being under stamped. He further submitted that even a perusal of the document shows that it was merely a receipt. Mentioning of words “Hundi” at one place does not make it a “Hundi”. It was a simple loan transaction between the parties and no business transactions between the two businessmen. He referred to an order passed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 1575 of 2007 –Romesh Chander Jhanji v. Anurag Aggarwal and others, decided on 5.7.2007, where under similar circumstances in appeal where a similar document was held to be mere an acknowledgement was dismissed. Further reference was made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another, AIR 1999 SC 1441 to submit that in the present case, appellant No.1, after tendering his affidavit in evidence did not present himself for cross-examination and for that reason adverse inference should be drawn against him.
