The appellant/defendant has projected this appeal as against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.24 of 1999 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal.

2. The short facts of the plaint are as follows:

The appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/-on 15. 1997 from the respondent/plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and has executed a pronote. Inspite of repeated demand made by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant has not made any payment. Consequently, the respondent/plaintiff has issued an Advocate Notice dated 22. 1999, 22. 1999 claiming the amount. The appellant/defendant has sent a reply on 14. 1999 with incorrect allegations. Hence, the suit is laid for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.37,500/-with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till date of payment and with costs.

3. The appellant/defendant has filed a written statement taking the pleas among other things that as a Government servant he has recommended for certain loans to other and he has never been a party to the following transactions and except for one instance of taking a hand loan of Rs.7,000/-in the year 1997 or 1998 from one Rajamuthu of Kottucherry to meet out pressing legal expenses in connection with an expensive litigation, he signed a blank pronote and handed over the same to the Contractor-Rajamuthu, who is personally known to him for long time and on 22. 1999 a demand notice has been issued to him claiming that he has borrowed monies from the respondent/plaintiff and demanding repayment and he approached the said Rajamuthu for return of the blank pronote since by the time the loan taken by the appellant from him has been discharged and since the debt has been discharged, Rajamuthu has been informed him that the pronote must have been destroyed, which he has taken to be true and by means of Advocates reply dated 14. 1999 the appellant/ defendant has denied the borrowing and the execution of pronote from the respondent/plaintiff and further that he has mentioned about the signing of a blank pronote in favour of his friend Rajamuthu and that the calculation of the interest is wrong and has prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

4. The trial Court, on the side of respondent/plaintiff witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. On the side of appellant/defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 have been examined and no documents have been marked.

5. The trial Court altogether has framed 1 to 4 issues and on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, it has come to the conclusion that the appellant/ defendant has received a sum of Rs.30,000/-on 15. 1997 and has executed the suit pronote and resultantly, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

6. The points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the appellant/defendant has executed the suit pronote Ex.A.1 dated 15. 1997 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs.30,000/-?

2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as claimed for?

.7. Contentions, Discussions and Findings:

.According to the learned counsel for the appellant /defendant, the appellant/defendant has not executed any pronote in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and that the appellant never borrowed the alleged sum of Rs.30,000/-from the respondent/plaintiff and further that the trial Court should have taken note of the fact that even witness P.W.2 is not able to establish the genuiness of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and moreover, the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the fact that the appellant/defendant does not know the respondent/plaintiff and it is not possible for the appellant to borrow money from the respondent and added further, the respondent/plaintiff has no capacity to advance the amount and further there is no entry in respondent/ plaintiffs Income Tax account for amounting the mo