The court affirmed the validity of a promissory note executed by the defendant, emphasizing that allegations of material alteration required substantial proof, which was lacking.

JUDGMENT :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

This Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 order 41 of C.P.C as against the Judgement and Decree, dated 04.07.2019 passed in OS No.1077 of 2015 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The plaintiff/respondent herein, earlier filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- together with future interest and costs against the defendant i.e., petitioner herein basing on the promissory note, dated 01.08.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other and on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the purpose of financial necessities to the defendant. On 01.08.2012, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant has also handed over the photocopies of the property which was standing in the name of the husband of the defendant as a surety.

4. Further, on the demand of return of amount, the defendant issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- vide Cheque bearing No.030496, dated 06.05.2014, however, when the said cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured for the reasons of ‘insufficient funds.’ Inspite of the repeated requests and demands, the defendant failed to pay the said amount. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit and thereafter, the plaintiff has also filed a criminal case vide CC No.59/2018 on the file of XXIV Spl. M.M Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabad against the defendant.

5. Before the trial Court, the defendant has denied the entire pleadings and written statement and contended that the defendant along with plaintiff entered into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ for running a business in the name and style of Mrs. SVS Eye Needs and both the plaintiff and defendant husband’s used to take care of the business as such, the defendant's husband gave a blank signed promissory note and cheques to the husband of the plaintiff for day to day business transaction and for the security purpose but the promissory note was materially altered, as such the defendant pleaded that the promissory note is not binding on the defendant and prayed the trial Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant and defendant’s husband are family friends and out of such acquaintance, the defendant and her husband approached plaintiff and requested for loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further the defendant agreed for execution of promissory note in favour of plaintiff for the said amount and also agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. payable on demand to plaintiff. Thereafter, after several requests the defendant agreed to repay the said amount and on 06.05.2014, the defendant husband issued cheque bearing No.030496, dated 06.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, and the said cheque was presented, but the cheque get dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds”. Aggrieved the same, plaintiff prefer suit.

7. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration:

“1. Whether the promissory note is materially altered?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is true, legal, validly supported by consideration and executed by the defendant in favour of