The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the case, and the Court has discretion in awarding pendente lite interest in non-commercial matters.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 21.08.2008 passed in A.S.No.8 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in O.S.No.193 of 2006. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. The factual matrix relating to this case could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- based on the suit promissory note. (b) The written statement was filed denying the signatures in the promissory note by the defendant. (c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court. (d) The plaintiff/Balasubramanian examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2/Subramanian and P.W.3/Ramalingam and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The defendant/Perumal examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2/Sezhian and D.W.3/Prabhakaran and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. (e) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that both the Courts fell into error in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence establishing unambiguously and unequivocally the plea of alibi as put forth before the Courts by the defendants.

4. The following proposed substantial questions of law are found suggested in the memorandum of Second Appeal:

"(1) Whether the courts below did not err in not considering the fact that a fair presumption arises that the entries made in the ordinary routine of business are correct since such entries usually form a link in the chain of circumstances which, mutually corroborates each other; most entries made in the course of the duty are subject to inspection and scrutiny of several persons including public authorities?

(2) Whether the courts below did not err in decreeing the suit despite the fact that when the course of the business is usually followed is proved, the probability is that there was no departure from the common course of business in the particular transaction?

(3) Whether the courts below did not err in failing to note that the evidence is offered of facts having direct connection with the facts in question, which lays the foundation to believe that the appellant was not in the village and actually on duty?

(4) Whether the courts below did not err in failing to note that evidence of D.W.2 and 3 had made the fact of the presence of the Appellant highly impossible and highly improbable? (extracted as such)

5. Both sides have argued the matter relating to the fact as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this matter. After hearing both sides extensively, I am of the view that there is no substantial question of law is involved in this matter for the reasons set out infra. However, one substantial question of law could be framed as under: "Whether both the Courts below properly exercised their discretion in awarding pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum, when the borrowal of money by the defendant, ever as per the plaintiff was only for non commercial one and that too for the defendant's daughter's marriage expenses?"

6. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would run thus:

(a) D.W.3, the staff of Chemfab Alkalis Limited from where the defendant got loaded the lorry for transport, detailed and delineated the relevant facts that on 15th January 2005 at about 9 o'clock the defendant took the tanker lorry with load in it out of Chemfab Alkalis Limited situated at Kalapet, Pondicherry, so as to take it to Karnataka. D.W.2, the staff of the Lorry Company in which the driver was working also would corroborate the testimony of