JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 read with Order XVI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Decree and Judgement dated on 28.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.172 of 2017, on the file of Court of Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

The Appeal Suit has been instituted against the decree and judgment dated 28.9.2021 passed in O.S.No.172 of 2017.

2. The appellants are the defendants in the Suit and the respondent / plaintiff instituted a Suit for recovery of money. The plaint filed by the respondent herein reveals that the plaintiff is doing transport business and owns a lorry. The defendants are the husband and wife and the 1st defendant is doing building construction on contract basis. For their professional and family needs, the defendants 1 and 2 have jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff, promising to repay the same with the rate of interest of 18% per annum and jointly executed the promissory note on 24.04.2016 at Sandaipetttipudur, Namakkal Town. The defendants failed to repay the borrowed amount along with the interest and the demands made by the plaintiff went in vain. Thus, the plaintiff instituted a Suit for recovery of money along with interest.

3. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the averments made in the plaint is false. The defendants have not borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum and executed a promissory note on 24.04.2016. The plaint averments are denied by the defendants and the signature and left thumb impression in the promissory note is also denied. It is contended that the promissory note is a forged document and therefore, the Suit is to be dismissed in limine.

4. The Trial Court framed the following issues, which reads as under:

1. Whether it is true that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note dated 24.04.2016?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the amount with cost claimed in the suit?

3. What other relief is the plaintiff entitled into?

5. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. With issue Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court considered the deposition of PW1 and PW2 and made a finding that PW2 Suresh Kumar is one of the witness to the Ex.A1 promissory note. PW2 in his deposition, specifically stated about the more of execution of the Suit promissory note Ex.A1. No questions or suggestions, challenging the contents in the proof of affidavit with regard to the mode of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note has been asked during the cross-examination of PW2 Suresh Kumar by the defendants. Contrarily a suggestion was put that the PW2 Suresh Kumar was giving false evidence and he has not signed Ex.A1. Mere suggestion in this regard was found to be unacceptable by the Trial Court and the clear deposition of PW2 Suresh Kumar was taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the issue Nos.1 and 2.

6. PW2 Suresh Kumar was a summoned witness and he has deposed that the defendants Annadurai and Mani @ Malarmani had borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- in his presence from the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had called him for signing as a witness in the promissory note and he had signed as 1st witness in the Ex.A1 promissory note. In the cross-examination he has specifically stated that he along with the defendants went to the plaintiff’s house and the money was given by the plaintiff to the defendants in his presence. He has also stated that the nature of notes given by the plaintiff. PW2 witness to the Ex.A1 promissory note has stood over the cross- examination and specifically stated that execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration from the plaintiff and the defendants.

7. The Trial Court had taken note of the ingredients in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which r