JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Erode in A.S.No.60 of 2014, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.279 of 2011.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.279 of 2011. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of money as against the appellant. The suit was dismissed on 28.11.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the I Additional Sub Court, Erode. The 1^st Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 30.01.2015, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.

3. The case of the respondent / plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff for his urgent family expenses, for which, he executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on demand. In spite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 18.04.2011 calling upon the defendant to pay the principal amount with interest, and the same was replied on 25.04.2011 with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant.

4. The case of the appellant / defendant before the Trial Court was that the suit was false and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and executed a promissory note dated 16.05.2008, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, were all denied. The alleged demands were also denied. In fact, the defendant had no knowledge about the plaintiff. The signature found on the promissory note did not belong to him, and the promissory note was a forged one. Furthermore, the defendant claimed that he did not know the witness or the scribe, and had never borrowed money from the plaintiff as alleged in the promissory note. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues after hearing the counsel on both sides:-

(1) Whether the alleged cause of action is correct?

(2) Whether the suit promissory note is true and made for proper consideration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

(4) Other relief if any?

6. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court, the respondent /plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one of the attesting witnesses and scribe as P.W.2 and P.W.3, respectively. Exs. Al to A5 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side on the appellant / defendant, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B4.

7. The Trial Court, after analysing the evidences adduced by both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the I Additional Sub Court, Erode in A.S.No.60 of 2014 on various grounds. The 1^st Appellate Court also framed the following points for determination:

(1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are correct.

(2) Whether the appellant’s contention that the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit is acceptable.

(3) Whether the appeal should be allowed.

8. During the pendency of the first appeal, the respondent / plaintiff also filed a petition under Order 41, Rules 27 and 151 of C.P.C., in I.A.No.105 of 2014, to receive additional documents, and thereby another point was also framed by the 1^st Appellant Court as to whether the said I.A. is liable to be allowed or not.

9. The 1^st Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, allowed I.A.No.105 of 2014, received the additional documents, and marked the said documents as Exs.A6 and A7. Subsequently, the 1^st Appe