J U D G M E N T

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.298 of 2018 on the file of 'Commercial Court cum Principal District Court, Namakkal'

(henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity).

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit i.e. appellant herein and the respondent herein will be referred to as defendant and plaintiff respectively.

3.Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated April

8th, 2019, passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.298 of 2018, the defendant has preferred this Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed therein.

4.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on December 7th, 2013 from the plaintiff to meet some urgent business expenses and thereby, the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said principal amount with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 per Rs.100/- per month i.e. 18% either to the plaintiff or to his order, on demand. Thereafter, the plaintiff had demanded the defendant to repay the loan amount several times but the defendant did not repay the loan. Since the defendant paid neither the principal amount nor the interest, the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.298 of 2018 for recovery of money.

4.1.The defendant filed written statement wherein she has stated that she never executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and never obtained any amount as loan from the plaintiff; that the defendant had pledged her Car bearing Registration No.'TCJ 5132' with one PVK Finance Company on July 8th, 1992 and at that time, the above said Finance Company got signatures and thumb impressions of the defendant and her husband namely M.M.K.Dinakaran in empty promissory notes and green concur sheets; and that the defendant has repaid the above said loan amount along with interest in time. It is further stated that when the defendant and her husband requested the above said Finance Company to return the empty promissory notes and conquer sheets bearing their signatures and thumb impressions, the Finance Company did not return the said documents by stating that they got mixed with other files and they would be returned after due search; that further they gave an assurance that they would not misuse the same; and that believing their words, the defendant and her husband kept silent. Further stated that the said Finance Company, foisted false case against the defendant in O.S.No.2 of 2007 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, with the connivance of one S.Kanagarathinam and also filed another false case against the husband of the defendant in O.S.No.1 of 2007 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal with connivance of one P.Selvam for recovery of money; that however, both the suits were dismissed after full-fledged trial; that feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the plaintiff therein filed Appeals in A.S.Nos.91 of 2012 and 92 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Namakkal and the same were dismissed; that in fact, the Second Appeals preferred before this Court in S.A.Nos.243 and 244 of 2015 were pending; and that the said Finance Company filed another Suit in O.S.No.11 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Valliyur, with the connivance of one Sadhasivam of Tirunelveli and the same is pending. Further stated that the defendant and her husband do not even know the plaintiff and they never obtained any loan from the plaintiff; that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document and is not supported by consideration; and that the suit has no cause of action. Accordingly, the defendant had prayed to dismiss the Suit.

4.2.Upon consideration of the plaint and other materials, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1.Whether the suit promissory note is forged and