IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 AS.No. 25 of 1995(D) ------------------- O.S. NO. 478/90 OF PRL. SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM ........................ DEFENDANT / APPELLANT : ----------------------------------------- V.P. PUNNOSE, S/O. PAPPEN, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURICHY KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------------- A.C. JACOB, S/O. T.C. CHACKO, ARAKKAL HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR KARA AND VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALUZPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI. A. SALISH THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- AS.No. 25 of 1995(D) -2- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 200/1995 IN AS. NO. 25/1995 DISMISSED 23/05/2011 SD/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.25 of 1995 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Defendant in a suit for realization of money based on a promissory note is the appellant. 2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the respondent-plaintiff elaborately on the basis of the materials on record. 3.The plaintiff sued on the basis of Ext.A1 note dated 13.4.1989. He tendered evidence as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the scribe of Ext.A1. The defence witnesses were three in number, apart from the defendant as D.W.1. The defendant could not establish the plea set up by him, which AS25/95 -: 2 :- essentially was built on admission of having signed blank papers with stamp affixed. The court below marshelled the oral evidence and concluded on preponderance of probabilities that the defence version does not succeed. The discussion by the court below in this regard as contained in the impugned judgment clearly shows that the court below has examined all aspects of the matter and the plea of the defendant did not stand. We do not find our way to take a different view in the matter as regards the appreciation of evidence. This is all the more so, because the plea of discharge by the defendant to the extent admissible as found on evidence was granted by the court below. This only adds credibility and credence to the plaintiff's case that the note was in fact executed by the defendant. The receipt of the amount covered by the note is also taken as admitted by the defendant. 4.With the aforesaid, we do not find our way to interfere with the impugned decree. The same AS25/95 -: 3 :- stands. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, however with no order as to costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/2305 AS25/95 -: 4 :- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.25 of 1995 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Judgment 23rd May, 2011.