JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.04.2016 in A.S.No.34 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, by which his first appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.56 of 2012 dated 22.08.2014 whereunder a decree for recovery of money was granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, was dismissed, this Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in the original suit under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”), assailing the Judgment of the 1st appellate Court on the following grounds:

The trial Court and 1st appellate Court ought to have seen that Ex.A1 the alleged promissory note which is without any date, month and year, is not a valid document in the eye of law, as such suit on the basis of such a promissory note is not maintainable.

2. The appellant has claimed that respondent/plaintiff has to be non-suited as there is no cause of action and as no suit can be filed on the promissory note without any date of the instrument and it would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. The Courts below committed a wrong in passing a decree on the basis of Ex.A1 which according to the appellant herein is not a valid document in the eye of law. He has also claimed that the trial Court and 1st appellate Court ought to have seen that Ex.A2 cannot cure the defect in the promissory note. The appellant claims that according to Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act.”) it enables the holders of document to fill the date only and as such the Courts below committed an error in observing the instrument is valid under Section 20 of N.I.Act. The appellant has claimed that the Courts below misconstrued the pleadings and evidence, thereby come to an erroneous conclusion. The Courts below ought to have seen that the evidence did not prove the borrowing of the amount by the appellant or execution of promissory note by him. Therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.

3. As could be seen from the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.56 of 2012 and the Judgment of the 1st appellate Court in A.S.No.34 of 2014, it seems the respondent/plaintiff has filed original suit against the present appellant for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note said to have been executed by the present appellant. According to the plaint filed by the respondent before the trial Court, he has pleaded that the appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him in the first week of January, 2011, executed the promissory note and receipt vide Ex.A1. The appellant herein filled up the contents of the promissory note, but kept the columns of date, month and year in the promissory note as blank by giving an option to the respondent/plaintiff to fill the same whenever necessary. He has also pleaded that the appellant herein agreed to repay the amount with interest @18% per annum. But, there was failure in payment of the money, as such the respondent sought for recovery of amount due under the promissory note.

4. The appellant herein resisted the claim, filed a written statement with a particular plea that he used to borrow petty loans of meager amounts from the respondent and used to pay the same. The respondent used to obtain promissory notes from him. Therefore, according to the appellant he has received some petty amounts from the respondent, but paid the outstanding amount through cheque as final settlement. The respondent promised the appellant that he would return the promissory notes, but filed the suit for recovery of money. As such, according to the appellant he is not liable to pay any amount and he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The following issues were framed by the trial Court. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.3,67,500/- with costs and interest as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6. During the trial the respondent himself was examined as PW1 and he has examined one of the attestors of the suit promissory n