LINGA NADAR Vs. MANOHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit O.S.No.51 of 2005 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,613.00 consisting of Rs.1,00,000.00 as principal component and Rs.56,613 as interest component upto the date of plaint based on the allegation that the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 promising to repay the said amount with an interest at the rate of 24% p.a and executed a promissory note to the said effect on 23.04.2003. The further averment made in the plaint is to the effect that since the appellant/defendant did not make payment either towards principal or towards interest, she had to issue a lawyer's notice on 24.08.2005 which was replied by the appellant/defendant by a reply notice containing allegations which are false according to the respondent/plaintiff and that the same pushed the respondent/plaintiff to file the suit.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the appellant herein/defendant who filed a written statement contending that he did not borrow any amount from the respondent on 23.04.2003. The appellant/defendant took a stand that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 from the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2000 and that since he was not in a position to repay the said amount, he had to execute a promissory note in the year 2002 for the amount borrowed in the year 2000. It is his further contention that he repaid the said amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 borrowed from the respondent/plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a on various dates to the plaintiff in front of the witnesses and the same has also been noted in the account books. The further averment made by the appellant/defendant is that the promissory note executed in 2002 was altered and based on the altered promissory note the suit came to be filed. It is also his further averment that three other suits, namely O.S.No.260 of 2005, 261 of 2005 and 262 of 2005 were filed on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri against the appellant herein/defendant for recovery of money with the help of discharged promissory notes after making material alterations. Based on the above said averments, the appellant herein/defendant pleaded for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) BASED on the above said issues framed by the trial Court, trial was conducted in which two witnesses were examined as Pws 1 and 2 and two documents were marked as Exs.A1 and A2 on the side of the respondent herein/plaintiff. On the side of the appellant herein/defendant two witnesses were examined as Dws 1 and 2 and no document was marked. The learned trial Judge has erroneously noted the number of witnesses examined on the side of the defendant as 3, whereas only two witnesses were examined on the side fo the defendants as seen from the list of witnesses and list of documents annexed to the judgment.