S D INDERCHAND Vs. BAGHAVANDASS REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

(2.) THE suit was for recovery of Rs.27,959 -47 towards principal and interest due on a hand -loan by a receipt dated 29.1.1970.

(3.) THE defendant contended that there was no telephone call on 28 -1 -1979. The defendant was not at Maduranthakam from 17 -1 -1979 to 31 -1 -1979. The letter produced along with the plaint was written on 20 -1 -1978. Subramaniam who signed the receipt was not in defendant's service. Subramanian was running a cycle shop. Though first plaintiff and defendant were friends they fell out. The letter is a fabricated one and used to make a false claim as the defendant could not oblige to the request of the plaintiffs. The letter used was an unutilised and old letter of the year 1978, but no amount was paid. The plaintiff had already filed three suits during the year 1980 and 1981 against the defendant. There was no mention about the suit in the notice or in the suit. The suit is vexatious and fraudulent.