IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 AS.No. 394 of 1997() -------------------------------- OS.91/1989 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): IN AS. - DEFENDANT I THE SUIT. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.K.K.VARGHESE, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT KARATHARA VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE, ASHTAMICHIRA POST , CHALAKUDY , THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): IN AS. PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P.V.MOHANKUMAR, P.O.BOX NO.774, AL-HASSA, SAUDI ARABIA, T.C. 32/1064, BEACH POST, NEAR ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT.P.C.GANGAKUMARI, TEACHER, RESIDING AT T.C. 32/1064, BEACH POST, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.3318/1997 IN AS. 3914/1997 DISMISSED 25/02/2011 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN ,JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.394 of 1997-E & I.A.No.711 of 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal by the defendant is against a decree in a suit for money filed on the strength of a promissory note. The plaintiff pleaded that the money was lent in Saudi Arabia and promissory note was executed in Bombay. Though the defendant pleaded that he had never been in Saudi Arabia at that point of time, Ext.A3 cheque issued by the defendant to another establishment in Saudi Arabia was the clinging evidence that the defendant was even, at that point of time, maintaining an account with a banker in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the plea of alibi of the defendant could not have stood. He also did not tender any documentary or oral evidence before AS394/97 -: 2 :- the court below. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the version of the four witnesses of the plaintiff and also of the plaintiff himself. P.W.2, the wife of the plaintiff had presented the plaint as the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. The documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A8, consisted of different materials, including the promissory note in question, the aforesaid cheque issued by the defendant and certain other documents. With this, the decree has necessarily to stand unless, of course, we are persuaded to act on I.A.No.771/2005 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking admission of additional evidence in appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the said application. We have also looked into the document which is sought to be adduced as additional evidence. At the worst, that material would show only certain endorsements regarding the passport entry which would reflect the availability or otherwise of the defendant in Saudi Arabia. But, there is nothing on the face of that document to indicate AS394/97 -: 3 :- that the said document was the first among the passports issued to the appellant defendant. We also do not find any ground established in terms of the requirements contained in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for admission of additional evidence. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss that I.A. In the result, (i) I.A.711/2005 is dismissed. (ii) A.S.394/1997 is dismissed with costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/2602 AS394/97 -: 4 :- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.394 of 1997-E & I.A.No.711 of 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Judgment 25th February, 2011.