1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.178 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode are the appellants. The suit was to recover Rs. 10,000/- on the strength of two promissory notes executed by the 1st defendant.

2. The material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:--Defendants 1 to 3 are the partners of the firm'Mayo Pharmacy' and the 1st defendant is the Managing Partner. The Ist defendant in his capacity as the Managing Partner, borrowed Rs.5,000/- on behalf of the firm on 5-8-1975 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 9-10-1975, the Ist defendant in his capacity as the Managing Partner of Mayo Pharmacy borrowed another sum of Rs.5,000/- and executed a promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, defendants did not pay the amount. Plaintiff also caused to send a lawyer's notice demanding payment, but that also did not yield any result. Hence the suit.

3. The Ist defendant remained exparte. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate written statements, in which they contended that the plaint allegations are not true, that the promissory notes were the result of the conspiracy between the 1