N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The suit of the original plaintiff-respondent herein was based on the Promissory Note. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had "miserably failed" to prove the execution of the Promissory Note. The first appellate Court took a view to conclude that the plaintiff had proved the Promissory Note "to the hilt". The moot issue is therefore whether the execution of the suit Promissory Note (Exh. 32) was proved on evidence.

1.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 219 of 1981 instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount based on the Promissory Note came to be dismissed on 29-9-1983 by the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dabhoi. The respondent-plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal before the Court of learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge at Vadodara. The said Appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dated 8-2-1991 and the first appellate Court decreed the suit directing recovery of principal amount with 6% interest from 16-5-1981 till realisation.

1.2. The challenge in this Second Appeal by the appellants-original defendants is directed against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed on 8-2-1991 by the first appellate Court.

Following order was passed in the present proceedings on 10-9-2013, formulating the substantial questions of law as under:

"The papers of this appeal placed before the Court by the Registry showed that as per the entry in the register, the appeal was admitted. However, the record did not have any order reflecting substantial question of law, which must have been framed at the time of admission. This being a Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same is required to be heard and decided on substantial question of law. Therefore, substantial question of law, which may be arising in the appeal are required to be formulated."

1.3. In the above view, in the aforesaid order, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:

"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate Court committed any error in holding that Promissory Note (Exh. 32) was proved?

(ii) Whether the first appellate Court erred in framing the issues?"

2. The facts leading to the present Second Appeal and giving rise to the substantial questions of law above may be usefully stated. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 219 of 1981 before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Dabhoi praying for recovery of Rs. 19,999/- with 15% interest. The case of the plaintiff was that the deceased Jasbhai Muljibhai borrowed from him for his household expenses and agricultural expenses Rs. 15,235/-on 21-5-1978 and in that regard said Jasbhai executed a Promissory Note. It was the case that despite repeated demands, he did not pay the amount and after his death, his heirs - the defendants were requested to pay the amount, but they also did not pay. It was alleged that by conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff was likely to be deprived of his legitimate claim in respect of the amount given. The suit was instituted praying to recover Rs. 19,999/- with interest. In the suit proceedings the plaintiff also filed an application for attachment of the properties of the defendant before judgment, which is Exh. 5 on record.

2.1. The defendants filed the written statement at Exh. 22. They denied that amount Rs. 15,235/- was borrowed by deceased Jasbhai from the plaintiff and further denied that any such amount was taken. It was further denied that deceased had executed any Promissory Note as alleged. In other words, the defendants denied the very execution of the Promissory Note dated 21-5-1978. They further contended that the plaintiff and the deceased had no transactions between them and no amount was due to the plaintiff. It was stated that they knew about the filing of the suit only when the proceedings were taken out by the plaintiff for attachment of properties. It was the say of the defendants further that the land owned by the plaintiff situated at Village Bithili was culti