JUDGMENT :

1. The 1st defendant before the trial Court, who lost his defence before the Courts below, filed this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. questioning the correctness of concurrent judgments of the lower Courts.

2. The 1st respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court. The 2nd respondent herein was the 2nd defendant in the suit. O.S.No.4 of 1996 was filed by the plaintiff as against two defendants. The suit was disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. The suit was on a pronote and it sought for recovery of money. The pleaded case of the plaintiff was that on 01.01.1993 defendant Nos.1 and 2 together borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the debt with 24% interest per annum as and when demanded. Thereafter, despite demands, there was no repayment and therefore, the suit.

3. The 2nd defendant did not choose to appear and contest and was set ex parte before the trial Court. Even thereafter, he never participated in the legal process. It was the 1st defendant, who raised a contest by filing a written statement and subsequently an additional written statement. His defence was that from the plaintiff, he never borrowed money and never executed the suit pronote and that the suit pronote was forged. According to him, it was Sri V.Nageswara Rao, who was behind the litigation and the plaintiff was only a puppet in his hands. It was pleaded that the said V.Nageswara Rao was the foreman of M/s. Sri Varsha Chit Fund Private Limited and in one of the chits run by it, both the defendants joined as members and their signatures were obtained on various blank papers and unfilled promissory notes. Out of disputes between V.Nageswara Rao and brother of the 1st defendant, the present suit came to be filed through the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that behind O.S.No.891 of 1993 and O.S.No.609 of 1995, also the said V.Nageswara Rao sued this defendant through his other henchman. In his additional written statement, he pleaded that the plaintiff was not coming forth to give evidence and so avoiding the witness box and plaintiff had no financial capacity to lend money and the plaintiff is represented by a General Power of Attorney Holder, who is the very wife of the earlier referred Sri V.Nageswara Rao. The suit is not maintainable without examining the plaintiff himself.

4. On this rival contentions, learned trial Court settled the following issues:

“1. Whether the suit pronote dated 01.01.1993 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount ?

3. To what relief ?”

5. At the trial, Smt. V.Durga Rani, who has been holding G.P.A. on behalf of the plaintiff, testified as PW.1 and one of the attestors of the suit pronote testified as PW.2. The suit pronote was exhibited as Ex.A.1 and the G.P.A. was exhibited as Ex.A.2. As against this evidence, the 1st defendant himself gave evidence as DW.1 and he got exhibited Exs.B.1 to B.8, which are receipts and passbook concerning chit, which he pleaded in his written statement. The receipts pertain to the period between March, 1989 and April, 1992. The learned trial Court considered the entire evidence on record and considered the rival submissions. It took a view that PW.1 by her evidence showed her presence at the time of suit mentioned money transaction and her evidence established execution of pronote by the defendants and exchange of consideration. The evidence of PW.2 further supported that version and PW.2 was one of the attestors to the document and he spoke to all the relevant facts and established all the essential averments of the plaint and he was an independent and neutral witness. Thus, the trial Court believed the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and concluded that Ex.A.1 was a pronote that was validly executed by the defendants and it was supported by consideration. While considering the contentions raised by the 1st defendant about the legal compet