Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The defendant filed a Written statement denying all the allegations of the plaintiff. He had also denied the execution of the suit promissory note . His further contention is that, he does not know who the plaintiff is and that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is a rank forgery.

After full contest, the trial court dismissed the suit on the following grounds.

7. At the outset, it may be observed that the plaintiff Mrs.Namitha Jain, who has filed the suit in O.S. No.3109 of 2003 before the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, did not examine herself as a witness, especially, when the defendant P. Sundareswar (D.W1) had denied the very execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A2. P.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff had deposed that the plaintiff was very much available in town at the time of his examination and that she can go over to the court for adducing evidence. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sandeep Shah, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, that the plaintiff could not attend the Court on account http://www.judis.nic.in of her pregnancy during the relevant period cannot be accepted. It cannot also be held that the plea of the defendant in the written statement that the suit promissory note was not executed by him and that it is a forged document is an ambiguous statement since even prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant has sent a reply notice dated 27.05.2003 (Ex.A4) to the legal notice Ex.A3 issued by the plaintiff denying the execution of the promissory note. He has mentioned in an unequivocal term that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery both in the reply notice as well as in the written statement. Therefore, the initial burden to prove the execution of the promissory note is on the plaintiff and once the execution of the pronote is proved by the plaintiff, then only, the statutory presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into operation in favour of the plaintiff as to the passing of consideration. In the instant case, as already observed, the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the promissory note. The P.W.1, who was examined on her side, though, at one stage, had contended that the defendant himself executed the promissory note, contradicted himself by stating that a person, who came along with the defendant wrote the promissory note. http://www.judis.nic.in He could not also state the name of that person. The other discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 were clearly pointed by both the courts below and they have concurrently held that the suit promissory note was not executed by the defendant. The first appellate court also, after analysing the evidence on record, found that Books of Accounts Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 cannot be considered as accounts maintained by the plaintiff during the regular course of business and that they are self serving documents. This is purely based on appreciation of evidence and by no stretch of imagination the same can be recorded as perverse. Thus, the finding of both the courts below are based on facts and appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot interfere with the same as per the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.