RAJENDRAN Vs. SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) The defendant in the pro-note suit is the appellant before this Court. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and executed a pro-note dated 05.08.2000. Hence, notice was issued through counsel for repayment. The defendant gave reply notice with false averments. Hence, suit for recovery of money based on pro-note.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant has contended that he only borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff for which he has already paid Rs.3,500/- in three installments. At the time of borrowing, the plaintiff obtained signature in a blank pro-note and making use of the blank pro-note, she has filed the suit filling it up with false particulars. Further, the defendant has contended that he has given Rs.17,500/- to the plaintiff when her father was admitted in the hospital for injury sustained in the road accident.