IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 20.08.2025 Pronounced on 14.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI S.A.No.583 of 2019 S. Karunanithi ...Appellant Vs.

M. Sekar ...Respondent Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.28 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.305 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.

For Appellant : Mr. V. Prakash Babu For Respondent : Mr. K. Govi Ganesan

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.28 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.305 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.305 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note dated 15.11.2009 executed by the appellant/defendant in his favour for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of

12% per annum with costs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

4. The plaintiff's case is that, the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- on 15.11.2009 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the present suit.

5. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document and that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend money to the defendant. The scribe and the attestors are the close associates of the plaintiff. One Sivabalan had filed a suit in O.S. No.323/2012 on the basis of a promissory note executed by the plaintiff's brother Murugan for Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.04.2010 and prior to the filing of the said suit, the said Sivabalan issued a legal notice on 20.09.2012 for which the said Murugan replied on 06.10.2012 with false allegations. In the reply notice, it is alleged that this defendant was doing cable TV business and that he approached Murugan during November 2009 for a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and at the request of Murugan, his brother the plaintiff herein gave a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant for which he executed a pro-note on 15.11.2009. The above allegations are concocted for the purpose of the present case. There is no need for the defendant to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintiff. The suit pro note is created at the instigation of plaintiff's brother Murugan to defraud the defendant. The defendant is working as a conductor in the Transport Corporation and never conducted cable TV business. He would further submit that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. On the basis of the materials on record, the trial court dismissed the suit against which the plaintiff preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.28 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai. The first appellate court reversed the decree and judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same the present Second Appeal is filed by the defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first appellate court failed to consider that the suit promissory note bears the Tamil date as “Sarvathari Year Masi month 3^rd day' which corresponds to 15.02.2009 and thus the suit is barred by limitation. His further contention is that the suit was filed with deficit court fee and no notice was served on the defendant in the time extension petition. He would further submit that the defendant