JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 21.04.2015 in O.S.No.159 of 2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda (for short, 'the trial court'). Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2013 seeking recovery of Rs.8,08,800/- with interest and costs from the defendant based on the promissory note.

2. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

The defendant, for the benefit of his business purpose, borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note on 15.05.2012, agreeing to repay the same with an interest rate at 24% p.a, yearly compound to the plaintiff or his order. Later, the defendant failed to repay the amount despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.09.2013, and the defendant received the same, but did not pay the amount.

4. (a) In the written statement, the defendant refuted the plaint averments and contended that he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff; he never borrowed money from the plaintiff; plaintiff lacked the ability to lend such substantial amount; he had acquaintance with one Potharaju Venkata Ramana and on his invitation, he went to a Kerosene bunk premises on 02.03.2012 in Avanigadda to witness a cricket game and partake in a liquor party arranged by Venkata Ramana; Venkata Ramana offered liquor to the defendant and requested him to participate in a cricket betting game; the defendant declined, expressing his lack of skill in such matters; despite his refusal, Venkata Ramana proceeded to engage in cricket betting game on the defendant’s behalf without his consent; after an hour, Venkata Ramana claimed to have lost Rs.21,00,000/- in betting and demanded that the defendant shall pay the amount; he threatened to prevent the defendant from leaving the premises and locked the exit gate; Venkata Ramana, then called his friends including plaintiff, Modumudi Vasudeva Rao, Desu Ramanjaneyulu and others, who are threatened the defendant’s life, unless he signed on empty promissory notes; to ensure his safety, the defendant complied with their demands by signing on twelve empty promissory notes; he was subsequently allowed to leave, but was warned not to disclose the incident to anyone; due to fear for his life, the defendant remained silent until he received notices from the plaintiff; eventually, he reported the incident to the Avanigadda police, but they took no action; subsequently, the defendant filed a private complaint in A.J.F.C.M Court, Avanigadda; based on the Court’s endorsement, the police registered a case under section 420 of IPC against Venkata Ramana, the plaintiff and others in Cr.No.205 of 2013.

(b) The defendant further contended that the suit promissory note in question had been fabricated by the plaintiff under the influence of Venkata Ramana; Venkata Ramana had initiated two other suits, i.e., O.S.No.155 of 2013 and O.S.No.160 of 2013 against him in the same Court seeking to recover Rs.18,00,000/-; the promissory note in question lacked valid consideration.

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

(1) Whether the suit pronote is executed by the defendant?

(2) Whether the suit pronote is brought into existence in the circumstances stated in para 4 of the written statement?

(3) Whether (4) Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

(6) To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined