HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1637 OF 1996 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.70 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,500/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note for Rs.25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 08.11.1983 with interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay the amount and hence the suit. 3. The defendant has filed written statement contending that he did not execute the promissory note and did not borrow any money from the plaintiff. He further submitted that he is working as a Development Officer in Leo Finance and he introduced the plaintiff to get the appointment as Agent. After getting appointment as an agent, the plaintiff misappropriated the amounts and subsequently, he was removed from service. Hence, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and filed the false suit with forged promissory note. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court, for trial: 1) Whether the suit promissory note is true? 2) Whether the suit claim is within time? 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Ex.A.1 and Exs.X.1 to X.4. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. After considering the material on record, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, has believed the execution of the promissory note and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the suit promissory note is true? 2) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount? 7. POINTS: This being a suit based on a promissory note, the execution of which has been denied, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution and passing of the consideration. Ex.A.1 is the promissory note and PW.1 is the plaintiff. The acquaintance between the plaintiff and defendant is not disputed. PW.2 also claims to be having acquaintance with the defendant and he is an attestor on the promissory note. PW.3 is another attestor and PW.4 is the scribe of the promissory note. All the witnesses have specifically deposed about the execution of the promissory note and passing of the consideration. There was nothing in their cross-examination to show that they are interested in fabricating the document to cause loss to the defendant. Further-more, even according to the case of the defendant, he has got acquaintance with the plaintiff and he got him appointed as an agent. Except the interested testimony of the defendant, there is no other evidence on the side of the defendant. The lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and accepted the execution of the promissory note. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that no notice was given prior to filing of the suit and the suit was also filed on the last day of the limitation and therefore, genuineness of the promissory note is to be doubted. 9. It is to be noted that the plaintiff and defendant are known to each of them and mere failure to give a notice and waiting for the payment believing the promise of the defendant is not a ground to strengthen the case of the defendant. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, is based on appreciation of the evidence and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date: 11.10.2011 INL