The importance of proving non-borrowal and forged documents, and the inadmissibility of comparing signatures with documents of recent origin.

The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), challenging the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruppattur in A.S. No.70/2003 in and by which the learned Judge has set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Munsiff, Ambur in O.S. No. 426 of 1996.

2. Since, the value of the appeal is below Rs.25,000/-, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, in the light of the Judgment reported in 2004 4 L.W. 586 (K. Chockalingam v. K.R. Ramasamy Iyer and others), wherein this Court has clearly held that the invocation of Section 115 of the Code, where the subject matter is less than Rs.25,000/-, would in all respects amount to a Second Appeal in the garb of a Civil Revision Petition, the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Code is not maintainable. However, this Judgment has been followed in 2012 (3) M.W.N. (CIVIL) 875 (Manickam Moopanar v. Lakshmi and others) and this Court has held that the remedy for an aggrieved party on account of the bar under Section 102 of the Code is to file a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court exercising it powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had then proceeded to convert the Second Appeal into a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that this Court may, in the light of the judgment in Manickam Moopanar supra, be pleased to convert the revision filed under Section 115 of the Code into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Drawing strength from the aforesaid Judgment, the revision under Section 115 is converted as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The brief narration of the facts and issues are as follows:

The petitioner who is the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.426 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Ambur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,117/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.20,000/- from the date of suit till date of payment. The case of the plaintiff is that on 17.01.1993 the defendant herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-, promising to repay the same on demand together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendant had executed a promissory note for the said sum on the very same day. But, however despite repeated reminders the respondent/defendant had not come forward to pay the said amount constraining the appellant to sent a letter dated 31.05.1993, calling upon the respondent to repay the said sum. Since, the payment were not forthcoming the appellant had issued legal notice on 30.06.1993, which was also not responded to, hence the suit.

5. The respondent herein had filed a written statement inter alia denying the borrowal and the execution of the promissory note in favour of the appellant. The respondent would also contend that the appellant did not have the wherewithal to pay the said sum. He would contend that since he was posted to secunderabad and as he did not know how to reach Secunderabad, his relative Jothi took him to the plaintiff's husband who had a friend Manoharan, who knew Secunderabad. The plaintiff's husband forced the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-.

6. Having realised that the plaintiff could be threatened into submission, it appears that the plaintiff's husband along with the said Manoharan had created the promissory note. The suit promissory note is a forged one and no consideration has passed under the said document. Therefore, the respondent sought to have the suit dismissed. During the trial the plaintiff had examined herself as P.W.1 and the said Jothi and Manoharan as P.Ws 2 and 3. In support of her case she had marked Exhibits A1 to A4. On his part the defendant had examined himself as D.W.1. and one Srihari as D.W.2, he would file Exhibits B1 to B6 in support of his case. T