KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SIVAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein in S.A.No.131 of 2007 filed a suit as plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2002, on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram, seeking for recovery of Rs.1,36,000/-, with subsequent interest and costs. The appellant herein in S.A.No.282 of 2007 filed a suit as plaintiff in O.S.No.26 of 2002, on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram, seeking for recovery of Rs.1,23,100/-, with subsequent interest and costs.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeals are given as under:-

(3.) The defendant also filed a written statement by taking a plea that no amount was borrowed from the plaintiffs either on 12.01.1999 or on 22.02.2000. In fact, on the said alleged dates, the defendant was working in the Neiveli Lignite Corporation as Deputy Chief Engineer. That apart, it was further averred in the written statement that one Duraisamy of Poonivadi Village was also working under the defendant. The said Duraisamy obtained permission for higher studies only in the evening College, but, violating the same, he studied in the regular course and thereby, he did not attend the duty in the morning hours . For the said irregularity, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the said Duraisamy. In view of that, an enmity between the defendant and the said Duraisamy had arisen. Subsequently, the said Duraisamy was also de-promoted from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Due to this, the plaintiffs, along with the said Duraisamy, being a relative to the plaintiffs, prepared the suit promissory notice by appending the signature of the defendant. Therefore, it was averred that the promissory notes being forged one, the suits filed for recovery of the above said amount should be dismissed. It was also further pleaded in the written statement that even though the defendant received a notice from the counsel of the plaintiffs, since the defendant did not know as to who the plaintiffs, he was not able to give any suitable reply immediately. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed the present suits. Only after receiving the summons, the defendant, by collecting all the particulars, filed the written statement. It was also the case of the defendant that when he was serving as Deputy Chief Engineer in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and drawing handsome salary, there was no necessity for the defendant to borrow the above said amount from the plaintiffs.