S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri is the appellant herein. The respondent is the defendant in the suit. It was a suit filed for recovery of money due under a promissory note. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 01.10.2013, decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. By decree and judgment dated 16.07.2015, the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. As against the same, the plaintiff/appellant is before this Court with this second appeal. This second appeal has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I have also perused the records carefully.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 11.03.2005 from the plaintiff and duly executed a promissory note thereby promising to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum on demand. Subsequently, despite demand, the defendant did not repay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 27.04.2007 to the defendant demanding repayment of the amount due under the promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 10.05.2007 as a part of the interest due under the promissory note. Though, further demand was made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the balance amount. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 11.03.2008 before the trial Court.

3. The defendant disputed the very borrowal of money by him from the plaintiff. He also disputed the execution of the promissory note and he further disputed the signature found in the said promissory note. He also denied his liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. According to him, in the year 2002, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff for which, he had executed a promissory note. That amount was repaid but, the said promissory note was not returned. Subsequently, the defendant issued a notice on 10.10.2003 as though, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff on 11.03.2002. According to the defendant, no such amount was ever borrowed by him from the plaintiff, as it was demanded in the said legal notice. Since, the defendant had not borrowed any amount on 11.03.2002, he did not sent any reply. Again the plaintiff sent another legal notice on 27.04.2007 to the defendant as though, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.03.2005 and executed a promissory note. This is stated to be the suit promissory note which is under dispute. Thus, according to the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. On the side of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W. 1. The suit promissory note was marked as Ex. A. 1 and the copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff was marked as Ex. A.2. On the side of the defendant, he was examined as D.W. 1 and the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 10.10.2003 was marked as Ex. B.1. During the course of trial, the suit promissory note was sent for examination by a handwriting expert from the Tamil Nadu Government Forensic Lab. A report was received from the Expert, after comparison of the admitted signature with the disputed signature of the defendant found in the promissory note that the disputed signature found in the promissory note differs from the admitted signature of the defendant. However, the expert was not examined before the trial Court and the said expert opinion was also not proved in evidence.

5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for and the same was later on reversed by the First Appellate Court. That is how the appellant/ plaintiff is before this Court