The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, and failure to provide sufficient evidence to shift the burden onto the opposing party can result in the dismissal of the claim.

The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Alleging that the respondent/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-on 01.09.2000 from the appellant/plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a; that on 09.09.2000 again the respondent/defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.20,000/-from the appellant/plaintiff and executed Ex.A2-Promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and that in spite of repeated demands made by the appellant/plaintiff, no amount was paid by the respondent/defendant either towards principal or towards interest, the appellant/plaintiff chose to file O.S.No.646 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-court, Erode. It was also the averment made by the plaintiff that both the suit promissory notices were written by the respondent/defendant in his own handwriting. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the trial Court, namely the Court of the District Munsif, Erode on change of the pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No.1268 of 2004.

2. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement denying the alleged borrowal on 01.09.2000 and 09.09.2000. The execution of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes on 01.09.2000 and 09.09.2000 was also disputed. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant contended in his written statement that he was an ill-literate person and he did not write the suit promissory notes as alleged in the plaint. He had also taken a stand that both the promissory notes were fabricated documents and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

3. In the light of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed three issues which are as follows:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes dated 01.09.2000 and 09.09.2000 are true and valid and whether the same were executed by the plaintiff to the defendant for proper consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

3. To what other relief?

4. In the trial, excepting the party witnesses who figured as PW1 and DW1 respectively, no other witnesses was examined. The suit promissory notes were marked as Exs.A1 and A2. Apart from those documents, no other document was produced on the side of the appellant/plaintiff. The defendant produced only one document, which was marked as Ex.B1.

5. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge pronounced a judgment in which after narrating the respective pleadings and the fact that the respondent had denied not only the execution of the promissory notes but also the signature found in Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes, proceeded further and observed that though the respondent/defendant pleaded that he was an illiterate and he could not write and read, there was an admission on his part that he could sign his name and that there was similarity in the signatures found in the suit promissory notes and the admitted signatures found in the documents like Vakalat, written statement and the proof affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant in the suit before the trial Court. Followed by such observation, the learned trial Judge expressed his opinion that the respondent/defendant ought to have taken steps to get his admitted signatures compared with the disputed signatures and the disputed writings by an expert, to find out whether they were of the very same person or not and that since the respondent/defendant had failed to do so, the plaintiff's case should be taken as proof. The learned trial Judge also commented upon the defence plea taken during the course of trial that the plaintiff owed a sum of Rs.35,000/-under a promissory note dated 25.12.2002 and when repayment of the said amount was demanded by the respondent/defendant, the suit promissory notes were fabricated and the suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. While referring to the said stand taken by the respondent/defendant, the learned trial Judge chose to observe that since the same was