Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.Heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.H.Kavitha, learned counsel for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

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

10.Mr.S.Vijayakumar, would vehemently contend that there is no consideration that was passed under the suit promissory note. He would further allege that the suit promissory note is vitiated by forgery and there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 and finally that, by virtue of the evidence of D.W.1, the burden to prove the document had been shifted from the defendant to the plaintiff, who had miserably failed to discharge the same. Therefore, he sought for the appeal to be allowed and suit to be dismissed.

10(ii).This Court did not admit the appeal in the year 2008, but had only ordered notice regarding admission on 01.12.2008.

11.The argument that Court has to hold that no consideration was passed on under the promissory note fails to take note of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A reading of the said provision would show that there is a presumption that a pronote, which has been executed, has been made out for consideration and the initial burden is on the defendant to disprove the same. In this case, the defendant's clear and categorical stand is that the promissory note is vitiated on account of forgery. The defendant, in fact, had taken out an application in I.A.No.953 of 2000 before the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District. The said application was allowed and the defendant had undertook to produce contemporaneous documents. However, he had failed to produce them.