The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution and genuineness of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Santosh B.Mane., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde., for respondent have appeared in person.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The facts, in brief, are these: It is stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff a hand loan of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for his family's necessities and his immediate needs. Further, the defendant availed the said loan of Rs.50,000.00(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by executing a demand promissory note on 21/4/2015 in favor of the plaintiff and agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum on the amount availed. It is averred that after availing of the loan, the defendant did not repay the amount. The plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the loan amount and interest many times. He issued a lawyer's notice dtd. 22/4/2017 and the same was served to the defendant; there was no reply from him. The defendant was due to pay an amount of Rs.75,800.00 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) inclusive of interest and miscellaneous charges. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and accordingly filed a suit for recovery of money. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement. The defendant denied the plaint averments. He contended that he is an agriculturist and he is residing at Nandibevur Village in Hararapanahalli Taluk. There was no necessity to get a loan from the plaintiff. He denied signatures on the alleged promissory note. He contended that the plaintiff's witnesses and scribe of the suit pronote colluded with each other, created a suit promissory note, and filed a false suit against him just to enrich themselves. The defendant specifically contended that he has not received any amount from the plaintiff as mentioned in the pronote. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff is a money lender without a money lending license as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000.00 and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.20.00% p.a. and executed the promissory note on the same day?

2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has created and concocted the suit documents? 3. Whether the defendant proves that the Court fee and valuation paid by the plaintiff is not proper?

4. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover the suit claim amount? 5. What order or decree? To substantiate the said contentions, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three witnesses as PW2 to 4 and produced four documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and produced one document marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.1(a). On the trial of the action, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. The order of dismissal is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition on various grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions.

5. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the petition papers and records with care. The points which require consideration are: 1) Whether there is a loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant?

2) Whether the defendant executed an On Demand Promissory Note? The issue involved in the case lies on a very narrow compass. The small cause case giving rise to this petition was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money. Since the issue involved is related to Negotiable Instruments, let us quickly g