The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of thoroughly examining additional documents filed after the closing of one party's side during trial to ascertain their genuineness and influence the final decision.

This appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.330 of 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,49,600/-, based on two suit promissory notes.

(b) Challenging and impugning the genuineness of the suit pr notes, the defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit and denying the liability.

(c) Up went the trial, wherein, the plaintiff-Ponnusamy Gounder examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked; the defendant-Rukmani examined herself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked.

(d) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this appeal has been filed on various grounds.

5. The gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff as stood evinced from the plaint would run thus:

The defendant on 21.11.2004, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-from the plaintiff and executed the first suit promissory note undertaking to repay the sum with 12% interest per annum on demand. Subsequently on 19.05.2005, the defendant borrowed once again a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the second suit promissory note. Inasmuch as there was default in repayment of the loan amounts, the notice Ex.A3 was issued on 31.07.2007 by the plaintiff, for nothing but to get a reply from the defendant denying her liability. Whereupon the suit was filed.

6. Per contra, the defendant in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the contentions as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiff, filed the written statement, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

The defendant borrowed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-from the plaintiff. Thereafter, because the plaintiff insisted for furnishing security for the prompt repayment of the said sum, at his behest and compulsion, an agreement to sell emerged between the plaintiff and a third party Kali Gounder concerning the defendant's immovable property. Subsequently the plaintiff through Kali Gounder filed the suit O.S.No.95 of 2003 for specific performance of such agreement. Wherefore, subsequently there was no possibility or probability of the defendant twice borrowing such huge amounts of Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff and executing the two suit pro notes. At the time of lending the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-itself, the plaintiff got as many as 15 blank pronote formats signed by the defendant and her family members and accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff inviting the attention of this Court to Exs.B1 to B9, would pyramid his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

Exs.B1 to B9 no doubt were filed after examination of P.W.1. Those exhibits were marked during the chief examination of D.W.1. The Advocate for the plaintiff simply cross examined suggesting as though all those documents were cooked up ones, purely for the purpose of defending the case. Those exhibits are letters sent by post and some postal covers bearing postal seals were marked and some of the documents are inland letters sent by the plaintiff to the defendant as well as to her husband. All those letters emerged during the year 1999 and 2000 and in such a case, there was absolutely no possibility or probability of the defendant borrowing such huge amounts during the year 2004 as well as in 2005 and the plaintiff also would not have lent such amounts.

Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and for dismissing the suit.

8. In a bid to contradict and resist the arguments