JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 29.01.2007 passed in A.S. No.82 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam, Kanchipuram District, upholding the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2004 passed in O.S. No.94 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif, Maduranthakkam, Kanchipuram District.)

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the courts below has filed the present second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranking in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the respondent/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 15.11.1998, promising to repay the principal together with interest @ 12% per annum and that despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount due under the promissory note Ex.A1. Therefore, a notice dated 31.10.2000, a copy of which is marked as Ex.A2, was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, for which the defendant sent a reply notice dated 17.11.2000, a copy of which is marked as Ex.A3, containing false allegations. He, therefore, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,373-70 together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the following grounds.

(1) The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 11.11.1998 and executed three promissory notes each for a sum of Rs.40,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,20,000/-.

(2) He had paid a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards the same.

(3) The promissory notes were not supported by consideration.

(4) Since his wife was admitted in the hospital, he had signed on revenue stamped papers to meet his wife’s urgent medical expenses.

(5) The defendant had also issued a reply notice dated 17.11.2000 (Ex.B1) to the notice of the plaintiff dated 31.10.2000 (Ex.B2).

(6) The suit promissory note has also been materially altered by changing the date from 11.11.1998 to 15.11.1998.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues.

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered?

(2) Whether the promissory note is supported by consideration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

(4) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. In the Trial Court the plaintiff examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The defendant examined himself and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. After full contest, the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff holding that

(1) The suit promissory note Ex.A1 is materially altered.

(2) The suit is barred by limitation.

Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.82 of 2006 before the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam. The learned Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam, after analysing the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

7. Now the second appeal is filed on the following substantial questions of law.

(1) Whether the courts below erred in law and mis directed themselves by wrongly presuming that the suit filed on 12.11.2001 was time barred and even assuming that the suit promissory note was dated 11.11.1998 as per the defendant, the suit was rightly filed on time with the preceding dates 10.11.2001 and 11.11.2001 were holidays.

(2) Whether the courts below erred in law and mis directed themselves in not considering Ex.A2 notice and Ex.A3 reply notice when the issuance of the above notices were expressly admitted by the defendant himself in his written statement.

(3) Whether the courts below erred in law and mis directed themselves in shifting the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the alteration was not done by him when they concurrently held that the defendant had executed the suit promissory note.

(4) Whether the courts below erred in law and mis d