K PALANIAPPAN Vs. C KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order dated 29.12.2004 in A.S.No.40 of 2004, on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.314 of 2000 before the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur for the recovery of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). The learned Additional District Munsif dismissed the money suit. Hence, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Karur in A.S.No.40 of 2004 which was decreed. Against which, the petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order of the learned District Judge, Karur.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first appellate Court has failed to consider that the execution of the promissory note is not proved. He would further submit that the respondent/plaintiff did not take any steps to prove the promissory note with expert opinion. He would further submit that the learned District Munsif has come to a correct conclusion that there is variation in the signature in Exs.B1 to B.4 and hence, the promissory note was not executed by the respondent/plaintiff herein. He would further point out that the first appellate Court also came to the conclusion that there is variation in the letter 'dp' found in the promissory note but has wrongly held that the promissory note was executed by the petitioner/defendants herein.