IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 972 of 2008() --------------------- AS.82/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR OS.1267/2001 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT -------------------- CHACKO, S/O.ANTONY, MADATHUPPADI HOUSE ERAVIMANGALAM DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PUTHIYAMAD- ATHIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. 2214 OF 2008 IN R.S.A. 972 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE 28.5.2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.972 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. 82/2007 dated 24.01.2008 of the Principal Sub court, Thrissur arises from the judgment and decree in O.S. 1267/2001 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The parties hereinafter referred to as defendant/appellant and plaintiff/respondent. 2. The suit was filed for money on a promissory note. The defendant denied the execution of Ext. A1 promissory note. The trial court repelling the contentions of the defendant, decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Hence this Second appeal. 3. The trial court examined the case on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the plaintiff's side. The defendant was examined as DW1. No documentary evidence was marked on his side. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court concluded that Ext.A1 promissory note was executed by the defendant. The lower appellate court also considered the contentions of the defendant/appellant but repelled those contentions for more or less the same reasons observed by the trial court. The findings entered by the fact finding courts are based on evidence, facts and materials on which this court cannot interfere in appeal by invoking Section 100 of the C.P.C This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No.972 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 28th May, 2009