RAJAN S/O MANAS Vs. SANAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.353 of 2010, the respondent in the appeal has come up with this second appeal. Originally, the suit was filed as O.S.No.251 of 2004 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit is one for money based on Exhibit-A1 promissory note. The trial court dismissed the suit and consequently, an appeal was preferred as A.S.No.353 of 2010 before the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, by the plaintiff, who was non- suited. The District Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit by directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 12.03.2004 till realisation.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- from him by executing a promissory note on 26.12.2002, whereby agreeing to repay the amount with interest at normal rate, on demand. Even after repeated requests and demands, the amount was not repaid and consequently, the plaintiff caused to issue Exhibit-A3 lawyer's notice, thereby forwarding the demand. Since the defendant failed to make the payment, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant contended that on 13.10.2003, the plaintiff along with two of his friends took the defendant and his friend named Cletus (DW2) to the house of the plaintiff and there he was threatened and intimidated and by force, the defendant was made to write a promissory note dated 26.12.2002, for Rs.65,000/-, and the plaintiff obtained the said promissory note from the defendant. According to the defendant, he filed a criminal case in respect of that incident, in which the Police conducted investigation and filed a Final Report against the plaintiff and his associates and the said case is pending as C.C.No.882 of 2003 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Neyyattinkara. It is also contended that since the plaintiff was absconding during the period of investigation, the Police could not seize the promissory note. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to realise any amount from him.