9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.W. 1 and Ex. B1-a communication from the finance company run by the plaintiff addressed to the defendant was marked during the cross examination of D.W. 1. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court, by Judgment dated 06.03.2007 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 74 of 2008 before the First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. By Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010, the first appeal was allowed and the decision of the trial Court was reversed. Challenging the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) When the appellant/defendant has taken a very specific plea that he put the signature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of consideration under the suit promissory note and dismissed the suit, whether the first appellate Court is correct in reversing the well considered findings of the trial Court, without discussing how the above said findings of the trial Court is wrong, which warrant interference under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code? 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant/appellant herein approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 75,000/- on 11.11.1998. He also obtained the loan amount of Rs. 75,000/- after executing the suit pro-note. The defendant contrary to his promise did not repay the loan amount. Therefore, the plaintiff had to issue Ex. A3-suit notice. But the same was returned ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there is overwriting in respect of the amount mentioned in Ex. A1-loan application as well as Ex. A2-pro-note. He also would point out that P.W. 1 had admitted that it was he who filled up the body of the loan application as well as the suit pro-note. According to him, in these circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought not to have raised the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to him, the trial Court had given convincing reasons for the conclusion that no consideration had passed under Ex. A2-pro-note and it has been established that it was executed only by way of guarantee and that since the plaintiff has not come to the Court with correct facts, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. No c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant did not examine either Reign or Murugesan. It is further seen that Ex. B1 was issued some time in July 1998. Ex. A1 and A2 are dated 11.11.1998. The suit itself was filed on 01.09.2001. The suit was not straight away filed. The evidence on record indicates that on 16.06.2001, the plaintiff issued suit notice-Ex. A3. Even though intimation was sent to the appellant, he did not chose to receive the same. The appellant is not an illiterate villager. He is a government servant. He was working as male nursing assistant. He has not chosen to send any communication. If his signatures had been unlawfully obtained by the plaintiff, certainly, the defendant would have issued legal notice to the plaintiff demanding the return of the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
