Madras High Court
M.Thangaraj vs T.Ramesh Babu on 2 June, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.317 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.317 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)No.4260 of 2021
M.Thangaraj ... Appellant
Vs.
T.Ramesh Babu ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2020 passed in
A.S.No.78 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 14.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.158 of 2018 on the file of the I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for M/S.R.Murugan
JUDGMENT
The defendant before the Courts below has preferred this
second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.317 of 2021
below decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking
for the relief of recovery of money.
2.The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of
money, based on the promissory note executed by the
appellant/defendant. Both the Courts below concurrently found
that the appellant has not discharged the liability cast upon him
under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In order to
arrive at such a conclusion, the Courts below relied upon the
evidence of P.W.2, who was one of the witness in the promissory
note.
3.The specific defence that was taken by the appellant was
that he has never executed the promissory note in favour of the
respondent and he has not borrowed any money from the
respondent. The appellant having taken such a stand, did not take
any step to send the disputed promissory note for expert opinion to
ascertain the genuineness of the signature that was found in the
said document. Rather the appellant took the stand in the reply
notice to the effect that his signature was obtained in blank
stamped papers and the same was misused. However, this stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.317 of 2021
was not taken in the written statement and it proceeded as if no
money was borrowed and no promissory note was executed. The
Courts below have gone into this issue in detail and found that the
appellant had taken contradictory stands in the reply notice and in
the written statement.
4.The appellant had also questioned the financial
wherewithal of the respondent. However, this was not even taken
as a defence in the written statement and an attempt was made to
develop such a case in the course of evidence.
5.In the considered view of this Court, the Courts below came
to the correct conclusion that the respondent is entitled for the
relief of recovery of money, based on the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and also based on the documents marked on the side of the
respondent. There is absolutely no substantial question of law
involved in the present second appeal and this Court cannot
undertake the exercise of once again appreciating the evidence,
which will be beyond the scope of the second appeal under Section
100 of Civil Procedure Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.317 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,
gns
6.In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
gns
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.
To
1.The Principal District Court, Kanyakumari,
Nagercoil
2.I Additional Subordinate Court,
Nagercoil.
S.A.(MD)No.317 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
