S.A.No.35 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

: 26.04.2022

Pronounced on

: 05.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

S.A.No.35 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.661 of 2022

Balasundaram

... Appellant

Vs.

A.Duraisamy

... Respondent

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,

against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.27 of 2017 dated

01.10.2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore,

confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.623 of 2010 dated

23.01.2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellant

: Mr.C.Deivasigamani

J U D G M E N T

The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.623 of 2010 on the file of the

Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above

Second Appeal.

Page 1 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.35 of 2022

2.The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.623 of 2010

on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum

of Rs.6,00,366.66 with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal sum

of Rs.3,50,000/- and for consequential reliefs.

3.The case of the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint is that the

defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- by cash for his urgent business

needs, promising to repay the same on demand at the rate of 24% interest. It

is also the case of plaintiff that the defendant executed a promissory note on

21.11.2005 acknowledging the receipt. It is stated in the plaint that the

defendant, despite several demands by plaintiff, failed to pay any amount

towards principal or interest due under promissory note dated 21.11.2005.

The suit notice dated 06.06.2008 was sent on behalf of plaintiff by registered

post to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount as per the

promissory note dated 21.11.2005 with interest @ 24% p.a. from 21.11.2005

upto the date of payment. It is admitted that the appellant, though received

the legal notice on 10.06.2008, did not sent any reply. Finding that the

appellant did not respond to the legal notice, the plaintiff/respondent came

forward with the suit for recovery of money due under the promissory note.

Page 2 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.35 of 2022

4.The appellant filed a written statement denying the averments in

the plaint. It is contended by the appellant that he is doing business for the

past several years and has earned reputation in his business circle. Stating

that he is having enough money to do business and he never indulged in any

kind of dealings with the plaintiff, the appellant also contended that he has

not signed any promissory note. In short, it is the case of appellant that he

did not borrow even a pie from the plaintiff/respondent. It is also contended

by the appellant that plaintiff/respondent had fabricated the promissory note.

From the written statement, it is seen that the appellant specifically disputed

his signature in the promissory note and contended that the promissory note

has been fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of suit. It is stated by the

appellant that he came to know about the fabricated promissory note only

after seeing the plaintiff's Advocate notice. The appellant, therefore, disputed

the receipt of any payment as well as his signature in the suit promissory

note. However, he admits that he did not give any reply to the legal notice

dated 06.06.2008 as he did not know even to give a reply to the legal notice.

Page 3 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.35 of 2022

5.During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an

Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.449 of 2015 in the suit in O.S.No.623 of

2010 to send the document Ex.A1 promissory note for scientific examination

and for expert opinion. It is to be noted that the defendant, during the course

of evidence, came forward with a new case that t