JUDGMENT :

1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of judgment and decree passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) passed on 16.08.2007 in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 2007 filed by the plaintiff wherein suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been dismissed.

2. For convenience plaintiff and defendant are termed as it exists before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 95,000/-along with interest of Rs. 24,475/-@ 1% per hundred on Rs. 75000/-from 01.02.2003 to 15.12.2005 and on Rs. 20,000/-from 21.06.2004 to 24.12.2005.

4. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the defendant sought some financial assistance from plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-, the said amount was given to him through Cheques No. 515874 dated 05.07.2001, 562885 dated 27.11.2001 and 562885 dated 12.12.2001 for a sum of Rs. 25000/-each and the defendant agreed to pay interest of Rs. 1.25%, 1.5% and 1.625% respectively to the amounts. The defendant for the security of the said amount executed 3 promissory notes valued at Rs. 25,000/-each. The defendant has paid interest upto 31.01.2003, thereafter, he has not paid the interest. The defendant has again executed acknowledgement for the money borrowed by him through promissory note dated 21.06.2004. The defendant again sought Rs. 20,000/-as cash and also promised that he will repay the amount Rs. 95,000/-. Since the defendant was well known to the plaintiff therefore, he has paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/-in cash and accordingly has executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Since, the defendant has not paid the amount, therefore, through his counsel plaintiff has served notice dated 22.10.2005 asking him to pay the principal amount of Rs. 95,000/-along with interest and also Rs. 1000/-for cost of notice within a week. The notice was issued on his address but his family members refused to take notice on the pretext that the defendant is not available, therefore, it is deemed to be served on 05.11.2005. The defendant has not complied with the notice, therefore, plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of the money as stated in foregoing paragraphs.

5. The defendant has filed written statement contending that Devilal Sharma is an agent who provides facilities of providing money to businessmen. He has admitted that he has taken Rs. 25,000/-thrice total Rs. 75,000/-on 05.07.2001, 27.11.2001 and 13.12.2001. It is denied by the defendant that he has executed three demand promissory demand notes as security. In fact the plaintiff was doing money laundering business. As per the plaintiff he cannot execute bond of Rs. 25000/-therefore, he had to give one promissory note for every Rs. 10,000/-to avoid income tax problem, as such, he had given seven promissory notes which were left blank and no amount was mentioned in the promissory note. The promissory notes were given on 05.07.2001, 27.11.2001 and 12.12.2001. The plaintiff has assured to the defendant that he will not fill up the amount exceeding Rs. 75000/-in the promissory note. It is also contended by the defendant that he has paid Rs. 19083/-till 31.10.2003 towards repayment of principal amount and not towards interest. The allegations made in the plaint were denied in toto except the facts which have specifically been admitted by him. It is also contended by the defendant that he has neither executed any promissory notes on 21.06.2004 nor acknowledged or confirmed the earlier dues. The plaintiff has malafidely fabricated in the promissory note and produced the same which is not acceptable to him. The suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred by five years. He has misused the promissory notes to fall the case within limitation as provided in the Limitation Act. It is also denied that defendant has promised