Sri.Somashekara. K.M., learned counsel for the appellant

has appeared in person.

2.

This is an appeal from the Court of IV Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, sitting at Madhugiri.

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial

Court.

4.

The plaint averments are these:

Plaintiff is doing business in sales and service of Exide

Batteries at the new bus stand road Pavagada in the name of

Sri Laksmi Venkateswara Electrical Works. The defendant was

doing business in the purchase and sale of Cars in the name &

style of Indian Auto Links in his old building at Kothithopu Road

near Survodaya College, Tumakuru Town. It is the case of the

plaintiff that he and the defendant are close friends. The

defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh

Fifty Thousand only) for his family necessities and agreed to

repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month on

- 3 -

17.02.2018 and executed a pro-note at Rs.200/- E-stamp in

favor of the plaintiff. The defendant also agreed to repay the

principal amount with interest whenever the plaintiff demands

the same. The defendant did not repay the amount. Hence, he

was constrained to issue legal notice on 21.09.2019 demanding

the payment of the amount but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff-

initiated action and filed a suit for recovery of money.

After the service of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared through his counsel and filed a detailed written

statement. He denied the plaint averments. He contended that

the plaintiff is a stranger and disputed the execution of the pro-

note on 17.02.2018 and borrowed money from the plaintiff.

Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court

framed Issues. To substantiate the claim, the parties led

evidence and got marked the documents. On the trial of the

action, the Trial court decreed the suit and directed the

defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh

Fifty Thousand only) at 6% interest from 17.02.2018 till

realization. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Trial

- 4 -

Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the First

Appellate Court. On appeal, the First Appellate Court confirmed

the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Hence, this

Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant under Section

100 of CPC.

6.

Sri. Somashekara. K.M., learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the Judgments and Decrees of the Trial

Court & the First Appellate Court are unsustainable in law and

hence the same is liable to be set aside.

Next, he submits that the defendant has seriously

disputed the signature on Ex.P.1 i.e., on Demand pro-note

dated 17.02.2018.

A further submission is made that the E-stamp paper of

Rs.200/- writes down the description as an Agreement but not

as a Bond or Demand pro-note. Both courts have failed to

consider the same.

Learned

counsel

vehemently

contended

that

the

defendant is not the plaintiff’s close friend.

- 5 -

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the

decree of the suit for recovery of money is unsustainable in

law. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal may be admitted by

framing substantial questions of law.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the Judgments & Decrees

of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court with utmost

care.

7.

The facts have been sufficiently said and the same

does not require reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal

was brought by the plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of

money.

8.

Let us quickly glance the law relating to Negotiable

Instruments. The law relating to Negotiable Instruments is not

the law of one country or one nation; it is the law of the

commercial world in general, for it consists of “certain

principles of equity and usages of trade which general

convenience and commonsense of justice had established to

regulate the dea