JUDGMENT :

Inveighing the reversal of decree of dismissal made by the First Appellate Court in a Suit for recovery of money on promissory note, the defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 19.05.2008 from him and executed a promissory note in his favour promising to refund the amount on demand with interest @ 12% per annum. Since he failed and neglected to repay the amount, inspite of repeated demands, he sent a legal notice on 16.02.2009 and the same was returned on 24.02.2009 and he filed the present Suit for Rs.1,09,232/- together with interest.

3. Denying the allegations, the appellant would plead by way of written statement that he had not borrowed any amount from the respondent at any point of time. He is working as a Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School and he has no necessity to borrow money from anybody. The alleged promissory note was not executed by the respondent/defendant at any point of time. There was no transaction between the appellant and respondent and all the allegations made in the plaint are devoid of truth and respondent/plaintiff is put to strict proof. The appellant does not owe any money and the respondent was trying to misuse the promissory note by creating forged signature. The cause of action alleged was imaginary and not true.

4. The Trial Court tried the Suit on the issues as to whether the defendant had not executed the Suit promissory note, whether no consideration, whether the appellant's signature was forged, whether the respondent is entitled to get the decree as prayed for. During trial, the respondent examined him as P.W.1 and marked Suit promissory note, legal notice and returned covers as Exs.A1 to A3 and examined the Head Master of Government Higher Secondary School, whether the appellant works as P.W.2 and marked attendance register containing the signature of the appellant of the year 2007-2009 as Exs.X1 to X3 and xerox copies of pay acquittance register for the months of January 2007, May 2007 and 2008 and November 2007 and signatures of the appellant in the acquittance register as Exs.A4 to A14. The appellant did not choose to enter the witness box and has not let in any evidence in defense.

5. The Trial Court finding that the respondent/plaintiff who admitted that no one had attested Ex.A1 - promissory note and that he did not send legal notice to residential address of the appellant in spite of knowing the same and that he could not speak about who scribed the promissory note had failed to discharge the burden that it was executed by the appellant herein and also passing of consideration. Though the signature of the appellant/defendant was admitted by P.W.2 - Headmaster, the respondent failed to take steps to send to Forensic Department for comparison and opinion and failed to discharge the burden to prove the signature which was disputed by the appellant/defendant. Though the defendant did not come to witness box, since the plaintiff failed to prove his claim and hence dismissed the Suit.

6. On appeal, the First Appellate Court considering the evidence and by comparing disputed signatures found in the promissory note with the admitted and proved signature set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the Suit.

7. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/defendant preferred the above Second Appeal on the following questions of law:-

(i) Whether the learned District Judge is correct in granting a decree without any reasons for reversing the well considered findings of the Trial Court ?

(ii) Whether the learned District Judge is correct in comparing the signatures without sending it for expert evidence ?

(iii) Whether the learned District Judge is correct in comparing the signatures in the Suit promissory note with Ex.A4 to A14 which are not originals ?

8. On notice, respondent entered appearance through his counsel and both the sides consented to argue the above