CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED Vs. SRI NOOR MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment dated 1.9.1989 in O.S.No.3466 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff, who lost the case before the trial Court, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: At the request of the first defendant, the plaintiff/bank granted certain credit facilities for Documentary Bill Purchase facility since 1979 onwards. THE second defendant has stood as Guarantor for the due repayment of the amount due by the first defendant to the plaintiff/bank. THE first defendant has been utilising the facility and has stopped operation of the account since 30.5.1983. He acknowledged his liability to pay the dues to the plaintiff/bank by executing a fresh promissory note on 19.5.1980. THE letter of Revival dated 17.4.1982, and letter acknowledging liability on 17.7.1984 has been executed by the first defendant. THEreafter, the first defendant has failed to repay the dues in respect of the facility availed, in spite of demand by notice dated 16.10.1984. As on date, a sum of Rs.55,566.97ps is due from the first defendant. THE second defendant is liable to pay the dues as Guarantor. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE Point: THE entire suit rests on the suit promissory note Ex A1 said to have been executed by the plaintiff/bank on 19.5.1980 for Rs.50,000/- which was due to the plaintiff/bank in respect of prior loan facility transactions. In the cause of action column to the plaint, the plaintiff/ bank relies on Ex A3 revival letter said to have been executed by the first defendant on 17.4.1982. THE learned trial Judge, after comparing the signature found in Ex A1 promissory note and Ex A3 revival letter has come to a definite conclusion that the signature contained in Ex A1 and Ex A3 are not that of one and the same person. THE first defendant has specifically denied having executed EX A3 revival letter on 17.4.1982, so the burden is heavily upon the plaintiff to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ex A3 revival letter contains the signature of the first defendant to save limitation.