KAMALAMMAL Vs. DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAMALAMMAL, petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Original, Suit No. 365 of 1992 on the file' of District Munsif Court, Arnbasamudhram, filed for recovery of the amount on promissory note against the respondent - defendant. The trial Court on consideration of the materials and evidence, oral and documentary, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 04.08.1995. The above judgment has been challenged in this civil revision petition.

(2.) MR. Bhiman,' learned counsel Appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the finding by the Trial Court that the execution of promissory note by the defendant is not established, is not based on proper reasonings, especially when the demand notice issued by the plaintiff on 03.08.1992 though was received by the defendant, he did not chose to reply for the said notice. The learned counsel further pointed out that when the second issue was framed by the trial Court on the basis of written statement by the defendant to the effect that whether the defendant is entitled for protection under Debt Relief Act, it shall be taken to mean the defendant admitted the execution of promissory note.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the trial Court has failed to take mto consideration two vital aspects: