JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008 made in A.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 made in O.S.No.342 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal.)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.342 of 2006 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal.

2. The respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit before the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, in O.S.No.342 of 2006, seeking the relief of direction, directing the defendants to repay the loan amount of Rs.37,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, till realisation. The learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, by judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007, had dismissed the suit in its entirety.

3. Being dissatisfied with the said findings, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal. By judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008, the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, had allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants are before this Court with the present Second Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i) On 01.07.2005, the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff to meet out their expenses and to discharge their sundry debts, for which, they executed a promissory note, in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @ 12% per annum. Inspite of several demands, the defendants prolonged the repayment of loan. Hence, the plaintiff issued a lawyer notice on 13.12.2005 and the same was suitably replied by the defendants. Hence, the suit.

6. The case of the first defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is not a permanent resident of Karaikal District and he is working at Karaikal. The first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.12,000/- alone from the plaintiff at Koranguputhur Village after agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 36% per annum. On 01.07.2005 at 9.30p.m., the plaintiff came along with 6 persons has obtained the defendants’ signature on a revenue stamp affixed in a paper with force and undue influence. The defendants are not aware of the witnesses, who are all signed in the alleged pronote. The alleged suit transaction done at Koranguputhur Village, Tranquebar Taluk in Nagai District. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff, is liable to be dismissed.

7. Based on the above said pleadings, the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, framed necessary issues and tried the suit. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. He examined one more witness as P.W.2 and marked 4 documents, as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. Similarly, on the side of the defendants, first defendant himself was examined as D.W.1.

8. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007, dismissed the suit, stating that, the suit is not maintainable before the Court of law at Karaikal. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.17 of 2007, the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, reversed the findings arrived at by the trial Court and ultimately, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Feeling aggrieved over the said findings of the Court below, the defendants, are before this Court with the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was a