JUDGMENT

The instant Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff. The respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that;

the defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note on 03.03.1993, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff further submits that in spite of issuance of legal notice, the defendant neither sent any reply nor repaid the borrowed amount. Hence, the plaintiff came forward with a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest.

4. The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by contending that they came to know that the plaintiff is related to one Mr.V.Ramalingam, who was the Office Manager in the Sugar Factory, where the defendants were working. According to this defendant, the said Mr.Ramalingam used to lend money on usurious rates of interest to the employees and used to take their signature on a blank printed pronote. While so, this defendant was in need of money, as such he approached the said Mr.Ramalingam, who was working in the Housing Co-Operative Society at Kallakurichi and who is known to this defendant. The said Mr.Ramalingam agreed to advance the loan, if the 2^nd defendant join in the execution of the pronote. Therefore, both the defendants 1 and 2 have signed on the empty pronote during 1990 and borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from Mr.Ramalingam. According to this defendant, they have signed on the empty pronote and handed over the same to Mr.Ramalingam. Therefore, this defendant disputes the due execution of the pronote, which allegedly filed by the plaintiff. It is the further submission of this defendant that they have already discharged the loan to the said Ramalingam. This defendant has also stated that the suit is barred by limitation and bad for non joinder of necessary party qua Ramalingam. In the Additional Written statement, he has also taken a defence in respect of material alteration in the pronote. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. In line with the first defendant, the 2^nd defendant has also filed a written statement supporting the defence of the 1^st defendant.

Evidence, Documents and Finding of the both the Court below:-

6. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2, and marked as many as 4 documents as Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendants, 17 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B17 and 2 witnesses have been examined as DW1 and DW2.

7. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved with the said judgment, when the matter was taken up in the appeal by defendants, the First Appellate Court, while re-appreciating the evidence, held that the plaintiff has not proved the passing-off consideration, and has ultimately allowed the appeal, thereby dismissed the suit. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

Submission of either side counsel:-

8. (a). The learned counsel for the plaintiff would vehemently contend that the defendants have admitted their signature. Therefore, by virtue of Sections 20 and 118 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, even for argument sake, if we presume that the defendants had signed in the blank promissory note, still, the plaintiff is entitled to fill up the said instrument and that there will be a presumption in favour of the plaintiff in passing-off consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the settled legal principles. Hence, the same is liable to be interfered with. In support of his contention, more particularly in respect of Sections 20 and 118 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned counsel relied upon