William Jhon vs T.Babu Antony
2021 Latest Caselaw 11371 Mad

                                                                        S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021




                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 02.06.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                              S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021
                                                       and
                                             C.M.P.(MD).No.4351 of 2021


                     William Jhon                             : Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff

                                                       Vs.

                     T.Babu Antony                            : Respondent / Respondent /
                                                                                 Defendant

                                   PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to
                     set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2019 made in A.S.No.43
                     of 2015, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,
                     Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, confirming the Judgment and Decree,
                     dated 05.11.2014, made in O.S.No.43 of 2008, on the file of the Principal
                     Sub Court, Nagercoil and to dismiss the suit with costs.


                                   For Appellant              : Mr.A.Arumugam




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                         S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021

                                                   JUDGMENT

***********

The defendant, who lost before both the Courts below, is the

appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money

based on a promissory note. Both the Courts below found that the

execution of the promissory note has been sufficiently spoken to by P.W.

1 and P.W.2. The Courts below also found that the appellant has not

discharged the burden cast upon him under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Heard Mr.A.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant.

4. The main defence that was taken by the appellant was that

he did not obtain any loan from the respondent and the signature found in

the promissory note is forged and the document has been fabricated.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021

5. Both the Courts below found that P.W.2 was present at the

time when the amount was borrowed by the appellant from the

respondent. This witness was a common friend for both the appellant

and the respondent and there was no previous enmity and there is no

necessity for P.W.2 to give a false evidence against the appellant. P.W.2

also stood as a witness in the promissory note.

6. Even though the appellant disputed the signature found in

the promissory note, steps taken by him to send the document for expert

opinion failed, since he was not able to furnish any contemporaneous

document to compare the signature. In fact, the appellant took a very

curious stand as if he signed a blank paper affixed with revenue stamp in

order to engage an Advocate to intervene in a bail petition before the

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and this document has been

misused. While dealing with this defence, both the Courts below came to

the right conclusion that engaging a Counsel does not warrant signing a

paper affixed with revenue stamp. Therefore, the appellant neither

established that the signature found in the promissory note was forged

nor did the appellant come up with a believable case to establish that the

signature affixed by him in a blank paper has been misused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021

7. This Court does not find any substantial question of law

involved in the present Second Appeal and the Courts below have rightly

decreed the suit in favour of the respondent based on the oral and

documentary evidence. This Court cannot undertake the exercise of re-

appreciation of evidence which will be beyond the scope of a Second

Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C.

8. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

                                                                                  02.06.2021
                     Index    : Yes/No
                     Internet : Yes/No
                     tsg

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.

2. The Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil.

3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

NOTE:

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

tsg

Judgment made in S.A.(MD).No.322 of 2021

Dated:02.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/