PADMANABHAN Vs. CHINNAKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the revision petitioner. THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of a promissory note.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

(3.) THE plaintiff has examined his assignor, P.W.2 and the scribe, P.W.3, and attestor, P.W.4, of the suit promissory note. P.W.2 has stated that the defendants borrowed amount from him and executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A-1, and that he assigned the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. P.W.3 is the scribe of the promissory note, Ex.A-1. He has stated that the defendants borrowed Rs.10,000/- from P.W.2. P.W.3 has no motive to fabricate the suit promissory note against the defendants. It is no doubt true that P.W.3 has also written two promissory notes for the plaintiff. THE mere fact that P.W.3 is a known person of the plaintiff cannot be a ground to reject his testimony. P.W.4 is the attestor to both promissory note and assignment Ex.A-2. He has stated that the first defendant took him to the place of execution of the promissory note. He has also stated that the defendants borrowed Rs.10,000 from P.W.2. He has admitted that he has attested the assignment Ex.A-2. Nothing worth mentioning is elicited from his cross examination to discredit his testimony.