A. PALANISAMY Vs. AHAMED BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, in the suit for recovery of money based on a pronote, is the appellant herein. The suit pro-note dated 23.01.2007 was for Rs.95,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with promise to pay with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Two witnesses seen the execution were examined by the plaintiff. The appellant contention was that he used to take job works of making silver anklets on contract basis. As a security for the silver bar supplied, the plaintiff obtained signature from him in the blank pronote. No consideration was passed for the alleged pro-note.

(2.) To prove his case, the plaintiff apart from mounting the witness box had examined two others who are the witnesses for the pro-note Ex.A-1. To rebut the presumption under section 118 of the Evidence Act, the defendant had examined one Sathiyamoorthy as DW-2.

(3.) Dw-2 is a common friend of the sparring parties. He had deposed that, the plaintiff gave him the blank pro-note carrying the signature of the defendant and instructed him to fill it up. He did so due to compulsion. At that time, neither the defendant nor the witnesses were present.