SANTHA Vs. RAJAPPAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filed a suit on a promissory note for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1150/-. The defendant contended that he has not executed any promissory note. Further he said that there were some transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant and in connection with these transactions, some papers stamped and signed were given to the plaintiff. I may at once say that in the written statement, the defendant said only that some papers with stamps affixed were given but did not say that those papers contained his signature. His case is that the plaintiff fabricated a promissory note in one of these papers given by him. In evidence the defendant said that the alleged promissory note was not executed by him and that he has given blank papers stamped and signed for the purpose of some other transaction between himself and the plaintiff.

(2.) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, found that the promissory note was not genuine and dismissed the suit. The appellate court, after a re-appraisal of the evidence, did not agree with the Trial Court. It decreed the suit. Now the defendant files this civil revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that though there was no question of law raised before the appellate court, which is now an essential requirement for entertaining an appeal in a suit of the nature cognizable by courts of small causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees, the appellate court has admitted the appeal. Counsel refers me to S.96(4) C. P. C. It reads thus:-