BENNY ISSAC Vs. LILLY ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.950/1997 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court -I, Ernakulam, and the respondents are the defendants therein. The above suit was one for money based on a promissory note and the suit was decreed as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner had preferred A.S.No.201/2006 before the Vth Additional District Court, Ernakulam. After re -appreciating the evidence on record, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal. The plaintiff had preferred C.R.P.No.1381/2003 before this Court. This Court, after considering the legality and propriety of the order passed in appeal, set aside the judgment and decree and remitted back the case to trial court to pass judgment afresh. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined further and D.Ws.1 and 2 were also examined. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Munsiff again decreed the suit as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants had preferred A.S.No.280/2006 before the IInd Additional District Court, Ernakulam. After re - appreciating the evidence on record, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the impugned judgment reversing the findings of the trial court and allowing the appeal.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(3.) THE defendants filed a written statement denying the liability under the alleged promissory note. The first defendant had never executed any document in favour of the plaintiff as principal debtor or as guarantor. She had no kind of transaction with the plaintiff and other defendants had never been guarantors to the first defendant on any document or for any kind of transaction. The claim is not supported by any kind of evidence at all. The plaintiff is conducting a chitty business and one of the defendants is a subscriber in a chitty for which purpose the plaintiff has obtained signatures in blank papers from the defendants 2 and 3 and from another son of the second defendant. Thus, the blank papers have been misused for filing the suit. Document Nos.1 and 2 filed along with the plaint are fraudulently created documents. No consideration was passed. Plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.