Instead of remanding the matter Lower Appellate Court ought have decided the matter.

This appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2004 in A.S.No.145 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.

2. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed a promissory note on 07.08.2000 at Vridhachalam for Rs.1,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendant is working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Since the defendant did not repay the amount under the promissory note, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the same.

(ii) The defendant filed written statement and contended that he has not borrowed any money from the plaintiff and that he did not execute any promissory note. According to him, the suit promissory note is a fabricated document. The defendants father instituted a suit in O.S.No.90 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam against one Karuppan based on the promissory note executed by him and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the said Karuppan with the assistance of the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note. The defendant has issued proper reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff.

(iii) The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined. Ex.P1-Promissory note was marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1. On behalf of the defendant, Ex.R1-judgment in O.S.No.90 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam, Ex.R2 - suit notice, Ex.R3 -reply notice sent by the counsel for defendant, Ex.R4-notice sent by the plaintiff and Ex.R5 - reply notice sent by the Counsel for defendant, were marked.

(iv) Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam found that the suit promissory note was executed for consideration and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant filed A.S.No.145 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.

(v) The main contention of the defendant in the suit was that the plaintiff and the defendant are not known to each other and the plaintiff is a man of no means. The defendant has pleaded that the suit promissory note came into existence under extraordinary circumstances, because of the enmity between Karuppan and the defendant. The defendant further submitted that apart from marking of documents relating to the earlier suit in between the said Karuppan and the defendants father, there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff had parted with the money.

(vi) On an analysis of pleadings and evidence, learned Appellate Judge held that the Trial Court having observed that the signature of the defendant found in Ex.P1 and the signature in the Vakalat are more or less similar, a specific finding ought to have been given by the Trial Court and since the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to prove that he has means to advance the amount, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to let in evidence.

For the above said reasons, the lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.90 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal of the suit and to let in additional evidence by the parties. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have assessed the evidence and pleadings and determined the points which arose for consideration. She further submitted that if the plaintiff had failed to prove his case, the appeal ought to have been decided on its merits and that the plaintiff should not be given an opportunity to improve his case to fill up the lacuna. She further submitted that in the light of the ca