PUNITHARASAN Vs. ANANDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been laid for recovery of money on a promissory note. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant has executed a promissory note under Ex. A1 on 18.01.2006. This promissory note was executed on receipt of a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. As the said amount was not repaid, a legal notice was issued under Ex. A2 dated 25.03.2008. Though it was acknowledged, the appellant/defendant has not chosen to give any reply. Exs. A4 and A5 are the admitted signatures in the document executed by the appellant/defendant. In support of his contention, the respondent/plaintiff has relied upon the scribe and the witnesses to Ex. A1.

(2.) The appellant/defendant has raised the plea of denial of execution. The main defence taken by the appellant/defendant is that on that date, he was working elsewhere. For the aforesaid purpose, he has produced Ex. B2, which is the attendance register.

(3.) The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 and that of the appellant/defendant himself was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for on finding that Ex. A1 has been duly executed by the appellant/defendant. It was further held that even on comparison of Exs. A4 and A5, there are certain discrepancies in the admitted signatures, as accepted by the appellant/defendant in his evidence. Insofar as Ex. B2 is concerned, the trial Court found that the same has not been proved in the manner known to law. For the aforesaid reason, the trial Court did not believe the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and The lower appellate Court has also concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the defendant is before this Court with this second appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: