The defendant in OS.No.4 of 2006, which is a suit for recovery of money, is the appellant. The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff based on the promissory note dated 15.12.2002 under which, according to the appellant/defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 12% per annum. According to the plaintiff he issued a notice demanding the repayment on 08.09.2005 to which the defendant sent a reply seeking a copy of the promissory note on 13.09.2005. Immediately on 15.09.2005 a copy of promissory note was sent to the counsel for the defendant and on receipt of the same, nearly after a month i.e. 20.10.2005, the defendant sent a reply claiming that the promissory note has been created by the plaintiff utilizing his signature obtained in blank forms when he was employed with the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the claim in the reply notice is false. Therefore, he is entitled to the decree for repayment for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum.

2. The defendant resisted the suit contending that there was no borrowing. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was the proprietor of one Madurakalia