NARAYANAN Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS.No.253 of 1997 is the appellant. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,400/- said to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 19.10.1994, acknowledging a borrowing of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiff had restricted the claim for interest at 9% per annum. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the money borrowed despite repeated demands which necessitated issuance of legal notice on 08.01.2009. Though, the said notice was received by the defendant, the defendant neither chose to comply with it, nor sent any reply. Hence, the plaintiff had come forward with the suit seeking recovery of money as aforesaid.

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement contending that the promissory note was not supported by consideration. According to the defendant, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed two blank promissory notes. It is claimed that using the two blank forms signed by the defendant, the plaintiff has created two promissory notes and has filed two suits in OS.Nos.253 and 258 of 1997 against the defendant. It is also contended that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 16,000/- in discharge of the borrowing. On the above contentions, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and the defendant apart from examining himself as DW1 examined one Sivaperumal as DW2.