Madras High Court
S. Karunanithi vs M. Sekar on 14 November, 2025
S.A.No.583 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 20.08.2025
Pronounced on 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
S.A.No.583 of 2019
S. Karunanithi ...Appellant
Vs.
M. Sekar ...Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.28 of 2017, on
the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the
Judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.305 of 2012, on
the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr. V. Prakash Babu
For Respondent : Mr. K. Govi Ganesan
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and
decree dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.28 of 2017, on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgment and
decree dated 14.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.305 of 2012, on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.305 of 2012 on the file
of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. The
respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money based on the
promissory note dated 15.11.2009 executed by the appellant/defendant in
his favour for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of
12% per annum with costs.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court.
4. The plaintiff's case is that, the defendant executed a promissory
note for Rs.3,00,000/- on 15.11.2009 agreeing to repay the same with
interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made
by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
present suit.
5. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating
that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document and that the
plaintiff has no capacity to lend money to the defendant. The scribe and
the attestors are the close associates of the plaintiff. One Sivabalan had
filed a suit in O.S. No.323/2012 on the basis of a promissory note
executed by the plaintiff's brother Murugan for Rs.1,50,000/- on
17.04.2010 and prior to the filing of the said suit, the said Sivabalan
issued a legal notice on 20.09.2012 for which the said Murugan replied
on 06.10.2012 with false allegations. In the reply notice, it is alleged that
this defendant was doing cable TV business and that he approached
Murugan during November 2009 for a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and at the
request of Murugan, his brother the plaintiff herein gave a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant for which he executed a pro-note on
15.11.2009. The above allegations are concocted for the purpose of the
present case. There is no need for the defendant to borrow such a huge
amount from the plaintiff. The suit pro note is created at the instigation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
plaintiff's brother Murugan to defraud the defendant. The defendant is
working as a conductor in the Transport Corporation and never
conducted cable TV business. He would further submit that the suit is
barred by limitation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of the materials on record, the trial court dismissed
the suit against which the plaintiff preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.28
of 2017 on the file of Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai. The first
appellate court reversed the decree and judgment of the trial court and
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same the
present Second Appeal is filed by the defendant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first
appellate court failed to consider that the suit promissory note bears the
Tamil date as “Sarvathari Year Masi month 3rd day' which corresponds to
15.02.2009 and thus the suit is barred by limitation. His further
contention is that the suit was filed with deficit court fee and no notice
was served on the defendant in the time extension petition. He would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
further submit that the defendant was a conductor in the Government bus
at the time of alleged execution of promissory note and that the attestor
and scribe of the document examined on the side of the plaintiff are
closely associated with the plaintiff and no independent attestor was
examined. The plaintiff failed to prove due execution of the promissory
note and passing of consideration. The first appellate court failed to
consider the above facts in a proper manner and erroneously decreed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff which calls for interference by this Court.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent /
plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved the
execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration with
tangible evidence. The first appellate court has rightly taken into
consideration the English date mentioned in the promissory note and
concluded that the suit is well within time. The first appellate court
understood the concept of Section 149 CPC and rightly held that the trial
court has misunderstood the above provision which ended in miscarriage
of justice. Hence prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
9. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
10. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- under the suit promissory note. The defendant has set up a
defence contending that in the suit promissory note it is mentioned as,
“rh;tjhup tUlk; khrp khjk; 3 Mk; njjp “ , which corresponds to 15.02.2009
and thus the suit is barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that, the
English date in the suit promissory note is mentioned as 15.11.2009. The
first appellate court has held that since the promissory note is in English,
the English date is taken into consideration at the time of filing the suit.
Since the defendant failed to prove the contra, it has to presumed that the
suit promissory note was executed only on 15.11.2009.
11. The next contention of the defendant is that the suit was filed
with deficit court fee and extension of time was granted under Section
149 CPC without giving notice to the defendant. Hence, he would submit
that the suit was not filed within time limit with correct court fee and
therefore the same is barred by limitation. However, the first appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
court placing reliance on the judgment reported in 2011 (3) MLJ Page
1037 (P.Kumar v. Sanjay Agarwal) has rightly held that even without
filing an application under Section 149 CPC seeking extension of time
for paying deficit court fee, it is not fatal to the case and it is the
discretionary power of the Court to grant extension of time, hence the
suit is not barred by limitation. No perversity or infirmity is found in the
said findings of the first appellate court.
12. As rightly pointed out by the first appellate court the plaintiff
has clearly established the factum of execution of suit promissory note by
examining the attestor and scribe of the document and about the
defendant subscribed his signature on the promissory note. Therefore,
when execution of pronote is proved, the legal presumption would arise
that consideration was passed. Whereas, the defendant failed to establish
that the signature found in the suit promissory note is a forged one. In
fact, the evidences of the attestor and the scribe was not rebutted by the
defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
13. In the light of the above, it is evident that the defendant has not
discharged the onus placed upon him that the suit promissory note was
not executed by him and the same is not supported by consideration. In
such view of the matter, the arguments put forth by the learned counsel
for the appellant / defendant cannot be countenanced. Therefore, I do not
see any question of law much less a substantial question of law in order
to enable me to entertain this appeal.
14. In the result,
i. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.28
of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai,
is upheld.
14.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai
2. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
bga
Pre delivery Judgment in
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:36 pm )
