JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal is filecl against the orders of the frrst Appellate Court in A.S.No.163 of 2016, dated 05.11.2O21, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.58 of 2014.

2. The appellant counsel mainly contended on the following substantial questions of law: -

a. Whether the louer Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal without exmaining the core i-ssue obout the proof and releuancg of Exhibits Bl and 82 in respect of uthich I-A.No.31 of 2O21 in A.5.No.163 of 2O16 filed under Section 45 of Indion Euidence Act is pending in the appeal and the adjudication of uhich is cntcial and assurnes uery nruch importance in uieu-t of the specific case and contention raised bg the Defendant in the suit.

b. Whether the judgrnettts of the Courts belou.t are uitiated for the reason of failure of the alleged suit promissory note transactiort bg the plaintiff in uieu.t of the fact that the euidettce of PW3 (Attestor on Ex.Al' Pronote) was eschetued ort 1 6. 1 1 .2O 1 5 and the same is the case uttth respect of the euidence of PW2 also?

c. Whetlter the obsentation of the Louer Appellate Court ot Para 9 o_f its judgrner tllat the oral testimonies /

PSS.J of PW1 and PW3 discharged the burden cast on the plaintiff under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is peruerse, erroneous, unsound and unsustainable in uieut of the uery foct that the euidence of PW3(attester) had been escheu.ted and whether the judgment on the basis of such peruese finding is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court?

3. Heard both the counsel.

4. A perusal of the record shows that a suit in O.S.No.SS of 2014 is hled for recovery of an amount of Rs.97,2O0/-. The plaintiff cxamined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Ex.A l-Promissory note dated lO.O1.2Oi4. The defendant examined himself as DWI ancl marked Exs.Bl and 82, small note books containing the receipts datcd O5.09.2O1O and 20.O1.2011 respectively. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary i evidence, dccreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the delendant to pay an amount of Rs.97,200/- along with interest Q'12'h per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date o[ decrec and futurc interest @ 60/o per annum from the datc of decrec till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.9O,0O0/-.

5. Aggrieved by the saicl judgment, the defendant preferred an arppeal, but the appellate Court dismissed the appeal PSS,,, confirming the judgnment of the trial Court. Against the said order, this Second Appeal is preferred.

6. The appellant mainly contended that he l-rled Exs.B 1 & 82, note books containing receipts dated O5.O9.2O10 and 2O.Ol.20ll, but they were not considered b}i the trial Court and he requested the appellate Court to send the documents to the expert, but it was not considered by the appellate Court. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that defendant filed Exs.BI & B2-Small Note Books containing the payments made in the chit amounts on different dates. But in the said exhibits, the name of the plaintiff u,as not disclosed. He contended that plaintifl was running private chits and obtained his signature on blank promissory note. But after completion of the chit, he did not return the blank signcd promissory note but filed a false suit against him. The trial Court observed that Exs.B 1 & 82 does not disclose the alleged chit run by the plaintiff and as such, they are not useful in the absence of any corrobortring independent evidcnce. Moreover, both the documents were not confrontcd to PWs I & 2 cluring the cross- examination. The defendant lurther stated that he obtained signatures of the plaintifl on Exs.B I & 82 till he became successful bidder and later, he could not obtain thc signatures /, PSS,J and the trial Court observed that if at all he was subscriber of the two chits and total chit amounts to the plaintiff, he would r have obtained signature of the plaintiff till the completion of the chit instalments. [t was als