1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Saharanpur dismissing the claim of the applicant. The latter brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 362-8 on the basis of a promissory note dated the 23rd of March 1911. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 250 on the 23rd of March 1911 from the plaintiff at Re. 1-8 per cent; per mensem interest and had given a promissory note. The defendant contested the claim. He said that he had borrowed Rs. 150 at Re. 1 per cent. per mensem interest and had given a promissory note for that sum. He denied having given any promissory note for Rs. 250 bearing interest at Re. 1-8 per cent. per mensem to the plaintiff. He added that probably the plaintiff who bore enmity bad altered the principal sum and the rate of interest in the promissory note. The learned Judge held that the promissory note had been tampered with by the plaintiff and that the latter was not entitled to get any relief in respect of it. The claim was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff in -his application in revision to this Court has taken two grounds. He challenges the finding of the Court below as to the alteration in the promissory note in suit and further contends that in any case his claim to the extent of the defendant's admission should have been decreed. - Apart from the oral evidence in the case the forgery on the promissory note is patent on the face of it. The figure 1 in 150 has obviously been changed into 2 and the rate of interest from Re. 1 per cent, to Re. 1-8 per cent. The forgery is so clumsy that one can detect it without the help of a magnifying glass. The first ground, therefore, fails.
2. An elaborate and learned argument has been advanced on behalf of the applicant in support of the second plea to the effect that a decree in terms of the admission of the defendant should have been passed in the applicant's favour. It is argued that the promissory note is only a piece of evidence in support of the transaction entered into between the parties on the 23rd of March 1911. If that evidence is tainted or unworthy of belief, the plaintiff should be allowed to fall back upon the original transaction and to obtain a relief on proof of it or to the extent of the admission of the defendant. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the following cases: Moti Lal Saha v. Monmohari Gossami 5 C.W.N. 56 and Mangal Sen v. Shankar Sahai 25 A. 580 (F.B.) : A.W.N. (1903) 122. The last-mentioned case is of no assistance to the applicant because it related to a transaction of mortgage. The case of Moti Lal is also distinguishable inas much as in that case it was held that the plaint of Moti Lal Saha did not show that he had based his claim upon the promissory note in suit. In the present case the claim is based on the promissory note of 23rd March 1911. Besides the case of Moti Lal Saha was subsequently considered by a Bench of the same Court in Gour Chandra Dass v. Prasanna Kumar Chandra 33 C. 812 : 3 C.L.J. 363 : 10 C.W.N. 788. The principle of law applicable to cases like the present is discussed at length by the learned Judges who decided the case of Das. The principle is that an unsuccessful attempt to gain by an alteration in a document should not put the party in the same situation in which he would have at first stood. If that were not so, attempts at forgery would be safe and frequent. Taylor in his book on Evidence says that the grounds of this principle are two fold. The first is that of public policy, which dictates that no man should be permitted to take the chance of committing a fraud without any risk of losing by the event in case of detection. The other is to insure the identity of the instrument and prevent the substitution of another without the privity of the party concerned. In view of this principle the 2nd contention for the applicant, i.e., that his claim to the extent of the defendant's admission should be decreed, fails.
3. The application is, therefore, dismissed with costs.