The Court emphasized the importance of proving the due execution of a promissory note and upheld the validity of the reconstruction of misplaced original documents by the Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgement in A.S.No.10 of 2015 and decree dated 29.07.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal confirming the judgement and decree dated 07.10.2013 made in O.S.No.317 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge of Trichencode.)

1. The unsuccessful defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on promissory note is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court, the appellant is before this Court.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent for family expenses on 02.01.2005 and executed a suit promissory note agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Inspite of several demands by the respondent, appellant failed to repay the same and hence, the suit was laid for recovery of money based on the said promissory note.

3. The appellant/defendant filed written statement denying very execution of the promissory note and borrowal of amount by her. The averment of the respondent as if, he demanded the money back was also denied in the written statement. It was further averred by the appellant that her father A.Muthusamy executed a Settlement Deed in respect of a small house in her favour. The brother of the appellant requested the appellant to transfer the said house in his name and the same was refused by the appellant. Therefore, the said Ramachandiran developed ill will against appellant and instigated his close associate the respondent to file a suit with concocted forgery document. On these pleadings, she sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences available on record, came to the conclusion that execution of suit promissory note was duly proved and consequently, granted a decree for recovery of money as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in A.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Courts below erred in granting decree for recovery of money based on promissory note when the said original promissory note was misplaced from the custody of the Court and the same was reconstructed with the xerox copy of original promissory note. The learned counsel further submitted that the order reconstructing the original promissory note was passed without issuing any notice to the appellant herein. The learned counsel further submitted that before filing of suit for recovery of money, no pre-suit notice was issued by the respondent demanding payment of money and the same creates suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the suit promissory note. The learned counsel further submitted that pending first appeal, an application was filed by appellant for sending the suit promissory note for comparison of the signature of appellant found thereon with the admitted signature of the appellant in the documents filed along with the application and the said application has not been taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the difference in the handwriting of scribe in the main body of the promissory note and the handwriting found in bottom wherein the address of the scribe was written do not match with each other and therefore, the genuineness of Ex.A1- Promissory Note is very much in doubt.

6. The suit filed by the respondent is based on promissory note. The execution of the promissory note was totally denied by the appellant/de