The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the authenticity of a promissory note when its execution is denied by the defendant.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘ the C.P.C. ’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 07.06.2000, in O.S. No.159 of 1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka [for short ‘ the trial Court ’].

The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,98,531.75 paise being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 25.08.1996 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.159 of 1999, are as under:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.1996 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same, on demand, with interest at 24% per annum. But inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount and the plaintiff came to know that the defendant with dishonest intention to default creditors attempting to sell away his properties. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The defendant’s father breathed last on 20.01.1990 and for the last 42 years the defendant is resident of Gajuwaka and doing a petty business and infact he had no necessity or occasion to borrow huge sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had never entertained any idea of alienating the properties and the present suit is vexatiously filed by the plaintiff for getting the properties attached by exparte order and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true and validly executed by the defendant?

(ii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 were marked.

8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated

07.06.2000, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Ms.Aasritha, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared for the respondent.

10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on behalf of appellant before this Court, the following point would arise for determination:

Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit and whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference?

11. Point :

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.08.1996 for his business purpose and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 24% p.a. and inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the same and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

12. It is the case of the defendant that Ex.A1 suit pronote is a forged one and the defendant has no necessity to borrow that huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he is running a small flour mill in Gajuwaka for the last 6 years and he has no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the signature on the alleged suit pronote is a forged one.

13. The suit is filed based on Ex.A1 promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant. The appellant in the case on hand is deny