IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.08.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI and C.M.P.No.23941 of 2023 Venugopal ... Appellant/Defendant Vs.

Ulaganathan ... Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.15 of 2017 dated 01.10.2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur confirming the judgment and decree as made in O.S.No.101 of 2008 dated 01.09.2017 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur.

For Appellant : Mr.P.K.Harinath Babu For Respondent: Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.Dheeraj for M/s.P.V.Law Associates

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2021 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2017 by the Principal District Court, Ariyalur.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, on 05.12.2005, the defendant obtained a loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, on demand, by the plaintiff. The defendant neither repaid the principal nor interest amount. On 02.07.2008, a legal notice was caused to be issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Despite the receipt of notice, defendant did not send reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. As the debt amount remained unpaid, the suit for recovery of money was laid by the plaintiff.

4. Per contra, defendant would inter-alia contend that he did not obtain the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 01.09.1997, the defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his son's marriage and at that point of time, he signed in a blank promissory note. He repaid the said loan amount within three years. When he demanded the plaintiff to return the promissory note, plaintiff told him that he would return it, but, he did not return the said promissory note. Suit promissory note is hit by the law of limitation and signature found in the promissory note is also denied.

5. Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed the relevant issues. At trial, to substantiate the plaint pleadings, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and attestor to Ex.A1 promissory note, one Ramalingam has been examined as PW2 and three documents have been marked. Ex.A1 dated 05.12.2005 is the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On the defendant side, defendant has examined himself as DW1 and three documents have been marked.

6. The trial Court, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, it was concluded that relying upon the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the suit promissory note was executed for valid consideration and as the defendant did not come forward to repay the said loan after the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff as the defendant did not repay the loan amount and the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money based on Ex.A1 promissory note and decreed the suit.

7. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred appeal before the Principal District Court, Ariyalur in A.S.No.15 of 2017. Upon consideration of trial Court records, and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, the First Appellate Court concluded that by examining the attestor to suit promissory note by examining himself as a witness, the plaintiff has proved his case and rather the defendant failed to prove that the promissory note is forged and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the defendant herein has preferred this Second Appeal.

8. The Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:

''1. Having treated PW2 as hostile, whether the trial Court was correct in relying upon the proo