The court emphasized the importance of specific pleading to support new cases during evidence and upheld the lower courts' findings regarding the execution of the promissory note and receipt of consideration.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.27 of 2017 dated 01.10.2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.623 of 2010 dated 23.01.2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.)

The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.623 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

2.The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.623 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,00,366.66 with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and for consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- by cash for his urgent business needs, promising to repay the same on demand at the rate of 24% interest. It is also the case of plaintiff that the defendant executed a promissory note on 21.11.2005 acknowledging the receipt. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant, despite several demands by plaintiff, failed to pay any amount towards principal or interest due under promissory note dated 21.11.2005. The suit notice dated 06.06.2008 was sent on behalf of plaintiff by registered post to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount as per the promissory note dated 21.11.2005 with interest @ 24% p.a. from 21.11.2005 upto the date of payment. It is admitted that the appellant, though received the legal notice on 10.06.2008, did not sent any reply. Finding that the appellant did not respond to the legal notice, the plaintiff/respondent came forward with the suit for recovery of money due under the promissory note.

4. The appellant filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint. It is contended by the appellant that he is doing business for the past several years and has earned reputation in his business circle. Stating that he is having enough money to do business and he never indulged in any kind of dealings with the plaintiff, the appellant also contended that he has not signed any promissory note. In short, it is the case of appellant that he did not borrow even a pie from the plaintiff/respondent. It is also contended by the appellant that plaintiff/respondent had fabricated the promissory note. From the written statement, it is seen that the appellant specifically disputed his signature in the promissory note and contended that the promissory note has been fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of suit. It is stated by the appellant that he came to know about the fabricated promissory note only after seeing the plaintiff''s Advocate notice. The appellant, therefore, disputed the receipt of any payment as well as his signature in the suit promissory note. However, he admits that he did not give any reply to the legal notice dated 06.06.2008 as he did not know even to give a reply to the legal notice.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.449 of 2015 in the suit in O.S.No.623 of 2010 to send the document Ex.A1 promissory note for scientific examination and for expert opinion. It is to be noted that the defendant, during the course of evidence, came forward with a new case that the suit promissory note was not executed in 2005, but he had signed in blank promissory note in favour of the Chit Fund Company run by the plaintiff as a subscriber in three Chits as security for the Chit amount, wayback in the year 1990. Therefore, it is stated by the defendant in I.A.No.449 of 2015 that the blank promissory note signed by the defendant in 1990 has been manipulated by the plaintiff to file the suit. In order to prove that the Revenue Stamp affixed in the suit promissory note is an old one published before 1990, the appellant filed the petition in I.A.No.449 of 2015 to send the suit promiss