THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2002 passed in O.S.No.1 of 1999 by the learned Additional District Judge, Adilabad, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit under Section 26 and Order VII Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking recovery of Rs.5,95,933/- from the defendant along with subsequent interest at 18% per annum and costs. The plaintiff stated that on 01.03.1996, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and executed a demand promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 15.12.1998 demanding repayment, which was received by the defendant on 16.12.1998. Despite this, the defendant failed to repay the amount. The plaintiff claimed interest amounting to Rs.2,45,933/- up to 05.02.1999, thus seeking a total recovery of Rs.5,95,933/-.

3. On the other hand, the defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed any demand promissory note or receipt. He claimed that after receiving the legal notice, he approached the plaintiff, who allegedly admitted that the notice was issued by mistake. The defendant asserted that he and the plaintiff were well acquainted, as he used to purchase insecticides and pesticides on cash from the plaintiff's shop. Owing to agricultural losses, the defendant requested a credit facility, and in order to avail it, he signed a blank promissory note and letterhead on 28.07.1995. He alleged that the plaintiff misused these documents by filling in false content to fabricate Ex.A-1. The defendant also contended that the receipt dated 01.03.1996 was actually a bond and not duly stamped, and hence inadmissible. Furthermore, the plaintiff was allegedly engaged in illegal money-lending without a valid licence. The defendant claimed compensatory costs of Rs.20,000/- for being dragged into frivolous litigation.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues and one additional issue and on behalf of the plaintiff i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the defendant.

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 23.12.2002, decreed the suit holding that the suit promissory note dated 01.03.1996 was supported by consideration. The plaintiff, through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documents Exs.A-1 and A-2, successfully established that he advanced Rs.3,50,000/- in the presence of attestors and a scribe. The scribe, who was examined as DW.2, had been working under the plaintiff at the relevant time. On the contrary, the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that Ex.A-1 was executed without consideration or was misused. The bills marked as Exs.B-1 to B-4 were not found relevant or convincing to support the defendant’s version. The trial Court also observed that the defendant did not reply to the legal notice issued on 15.12.1998, which undermined the credibility of his defence. Consequently, the Court disbelieved the claim of the defendant that the pronote was misused or fabricated and found that the suit pronote did not come into existence under the circumstances alleged by the defendant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/defendant filed the present appeal suit. 6. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in decreeing the suit in the absence of foundational pleadings and credible evidence from the respondent and that the case of the respondent rested on the alleged execution of a promissory note dated 01.03.1996 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, purportedly towards a hand loan extended to the appellant. He further submitted that