The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper interpretation of the rules of pleadings and the presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

S. Vimala, J.

1. (i) When the plaintiff is expected to raise pleadings only with reference to Facta Probanda and not with reference to Facta Probantia, whether the first appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court, on the ground that the plaintiff is guilty of omission to plead Facta Probantia?

(ii) Whether the presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with regard to passing of consideration would be applicable only when the execution of promissory note is admitted and not when the execution is disputed and proved later?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest as per the contractual rate mentioned in the promissory note which would be against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957?

These three questions of law were framed/refrained/restructured, at the time of hearing from the questions not framed/framed at the time of admission.

The plaintiff Kokila filed a suit based upon the Promissory Note dated 02.01.2005 said to have been executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

2. The defendant disputed the claim on the ground that;

(a) Promissory Note is a rank forgery.

(b) Plaintiff has no wherewithal to lend such a huge amount.

(c) Defendant had no necessity to buy such huge amount.

3. Before the trial court, plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and the attesting witness to the Pro Note has been examined as PW-2. Ex.A1-Promissory Note was the only document produced and the DW-1 was the only witness examined.

4. The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,83,750/- with costs and subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the original sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The trial court gave a finding that the execution of promissory note has been proved through the evidence of PW-2, the attesting witness. The trial court raised presumption available under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration.

5. Challenging the findings, the defendant preferred appeal before the District Court in A.S. No. 19 of 2008. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed in O.S. No. 85 of 2006 and thereby the suit came to be dismissed. The findings of the first appellate court is challenged as perverse before this court.

6. The first appellate court did not believe the promissory note mainly on the ground that the plaint is silent about the presence of attesting witness, PW-2 and the scribe Balasubramaniam at the time of execution of promissory note. Whether this finding is justified, is the issue to be considered. In order to appreciate the observation made by the first appellate court, it is necessary to look into the rules relating to pleadings.

6.1. The fundamental rules of pleadings are:-

(1) Every pleading must state facts and not law.

(2) It must state all the material facts and material facts only.

(3) It must state only the facts on which the party pleading relies and not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

(4) It must state such facts concisely, but with precision and certainty.

The materials on which, a party relies are Facta Probanda (the facts to be proved) and they should be stated in the pleadings.

The facts by means of which they are to be proved are Facta Probanda and they are not to be stated.

6.2. The drafting of pleadings is an art which demands high degree of professional skill, knowledge, expertise and experience. It is stated to be, not a child's play. The function of pleadings is primarily for the benefit of the parties and for the assistance of court. It is the duty of the court to peruse the pleadings atleast at the time of framing of issues and to strike out matters which are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise an abuse of process of court (Order 6 Rule 16).

6.3. Parties are expected to state only essential facts so that the other p