GIRIJA SIVARAMAN Vs. IDEAL BANKERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the dismissal of a suit for money, the plaintiff is in appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the first defendant firm borrowed an amount of ? 5 lakhs from her on 10/8/2001. The second defendant is the Managing Partner of the first defendant firm. The third defendant and the predecessor of defendants 4 to 6 viz. late Dharmajan are its partners. To secure the repayment of amount, the second defendant as the Managing Partner executed Ext.A3 promissory note dtd. 10/8/2001 in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of repeated demands, the amount was not repaid. Accordingly the suit was filed.

(3.) The second defendant remained ex parte. The third defendant, and defendants 4 to 6 jointly, filed written statements. They denied the alleged transaction. They contended that, though a firm in the name of the first defendant was registered, it never functioned. The second defendant has business in the name of 'Ideal Investments'. The plaintiff and the second defendant are friends. Ext.A3 promissory note has been fraudulently created. It was also alleged that the plaintiff does not have the financial capacity to pay the amount as claimed.