IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2007 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 AS.No. 982 of 1998(A) --------------------------- OS.569/1995 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT:DEFENDANT --------------- T.P.DINIL KUMAR, S/O. SATHYAPALAN, AGED 32 YEARS, MATHMMANILA KANDATHIL PUTHEN PURAYIL, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOLATHARA KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ---------------- P.K.ASHOKAN, S/O. RAMUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, PARAPPURAL THADATHIL HOUSE, VELIPRAM AMSOM, KARINKALLAI DESOM, KOZHIKKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- A.S.No.982 of 1998 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th December, 2007. J U D G M E N T The defendant in a suit based on pro-note is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money. The appellant pleaded discharge of the debt by producing Ext.B1 letter. The court below did not accept that document and decreed the suit. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting Ext.B1. 2. After considering the matter, I do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is only to be dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- A.S.No.982 of 1998 J U D G M E N T Dated:10th December, 2007. -------------------------------