(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE plaintiff, Indian Bank, filed a suit in O.S. No. 408 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli, claiming a sum of Rs. 2, 968.89 on the promissory note exhibit A-7, dated March 15, 1976. THE allegations in the plaint are as follows : THE defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 2, 000 on March 2, 1970, and executed a promissory note exhibit A-1 from the plaintiff's branch office at Tennur. For due repayment of the loan, as a collateral security, the defendants have executed the pronote on the same date in favour of the plaintiff-bank. After giving credit to the amounts paid by the defendants towards the loan, the amount still due and payable by them comes to Rs. 4, 331.87 together with interest calculated upto March 10, 1979, as per the ledger page maintained by the plaintiff. For the amount due by the defendants as on March 15, 1976, the defendants have executed a suit pronote, exhibit A-7, promising to pay the same specified therein together with interest stipulated therein on demand to the plaintiff.
(2.) THE suit pronote is supported by consideration and is in time. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed and neglected to pay off their dues, the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is stated as follows:
(3.) THE execution of the alleged promissory note dated March 15, 1976, exhibit A-7 is denied. At the time of original borrowing and at the time of payment, the plaintiff used to get the signature in various printed blank forms and on revenue stamps as well. THE said promissory note might have been concocted with the available signatures on the blank printed forms and the promissory note is not supported by any consideration. If the claim of the plaintiff is true, the plaintiff could have obtained the signature on the ledger page itself by affixing the revenue stamp. That is not the case of the plaintiff. THEre was no demand and no notice prior to the filing of the suit.