T4o- © cosa4ss 08918 0416-2228918 A Karthikeyan 1 Big Streot, 2 004. #67, Advocate — ‘orspe, VELLORE: To, , Thiru Ry Vijayakumar S/os Letes Ramanujan’ Mardanman Koil Street, Brammapuran Vill agn, Fatoaos tatux, Sir, “ =a Under instructions from ny client Int. S,Deivayerad mal, w/e. Pe Subramans Mancies, residing st Chennai Salad, Bramna~ Paros Village, + Thereby issue this legel notice as follons to your tpad! Taluk, 1s That ay clicae stetes that you have borrowed a sua Sf 15,29000/~ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) from ay élient on 21.08.2006 for your urgent nite ‘GS and marriage expenses and in evidence of the saad borrowing, You hve executed a promisséry note in favour of ay client on the sane day for thh valid and binding consideration Feceived,at Brannapuram, fré my client, thereby agreeing to repay the ancunt borrowed, on demayi wath interest at the rate of is.3/- per hundred pér month, 2. That my cligit states that you have also borrowed 2 Sun of §5.25,000/~ from my dient fxax on 21.08.2006 for your urgent needs enc for marriage expénd's andin evidence of the saie borrowing, youhave executed a promissorynote in favour cf my client on the sane tay for the valid and binding|ccnsidezacion received at Brannapuran, from sy client, thereby agree|ng tc repay the amount borrowed on Genand with interest ot the Ete of &.3/~ per hundred por months 3. Theat you hay] paio a sum of &1,000/- to my client on 06,03,2009 towards the int{rest, in respect of the aforesaid two Promissory notes ané also mad] endorsements on the said promissory notes, on 06,03,2009, Except fhe zfcresaid payment, you have not paid any amount to my client eithel tonards the principal or interest Anspite of my client's repeat{d demands and requests, : 4, That steps hive to be taken against you in a court of law for the recovery of thy anourt due to my client under the afore: idpromissory notes, 5. Hence please |take notice ‘that you are hereby called upon by my client to pay the dum of %450,000/~ (¥5425,000 + bexaBxx 425,000) towards the princip41 ard interest accrued thereon fron 21.08,2006 to till date of rediisstion at contract rate, after Jeduct= “ing the payment of .1,090/-[rowerds interest on 05,03,2009, tals Gate of realisaticn along witil « sum of .500/- towards the cost of thisnotice within 7 days sa he date of receipt of thisnotice failing which ny client will be constryinec to take appropriate legel action against you in a court of law pnd you will be held liable for aly | a2 _ Scanned with CamScannerScanned with CamScannerATHINA KUMAR, B.A, BLL, : ADVOCATE No.239/A, Siva Complex (Upstai ind Si 1 Neate rae ceimeles Upstaey), Dehind Sei Murugan Theatee, hari, Vellore -9. Cell: 9486562912 To 16/11/2009 Kosopet. Vellore-1 Sir My client R-Vijayakumar, S’o.LsteRamanujam, Mariyamman Koil. Street. Brammapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk hid placed in my hands your notice dated 9909-2009 issued on behalf of your client S.Deivanai Ammal, Wyo.P.Subramani Manghiri, residing at Chennai salai, Bramcapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk 1 issue you the following reply as follows: 1, My client specifically denies the entire allegations made in your notice dated 0909/2009 save those that are specifically admitted herein and put your client to strict proof of the same. 2. My client specifically denies para 1 of your notice dated 09/09/2009, and state that my client never barrowed any amount frcm your client, my client never executed any promissory note in favor of your client mich less the alleged promissory note dated 21/08/2006, further my client never agreed to repay the sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.3/- per hundred per month, your client is strict to prove the same. 3. My client specifically denies para 2 of your notice dated 09/09/2009, and state :nt never barrowed any amount from your client, my client never executed any that my promissory note in favor of your client much less the alleged promissory note dated Scanned with CamScannerV.RATHINA SU St4R 3 Hove’, RBA, BL, iva Complex (Upstairey. BEB. oan va Complen (Ups igan Theatre, Cell: 948656212 2108/2006. further my client never agreed tbe sum of Rs.25.000'- with ins at the rate of Rs.3 = per hundred per month. 2 is strict to prove the sem 4. My client specifically denies the ll-zations made in para 3 of your notice and state that my client never made any endo‘ =ts on the aforesaid two promissory note on 0603 2009, the endorsement are forges * sported by consideration. Hence my no liability to be cleared on the part of my serving in ri 2 fs 90 need or necessity for m Advocate Scanned with CamScannerWISI snjy gos, Gougony 1 OSNo, 38 2010 Ssimutas oncworet i ed ce Squaw +t Baurg) on srlals sidscgb poisn omaigepsub CAN) IAL, ancumy ax, SyeYN, Castens axenanish SAS apes worsted awry b spite Gpioustenst enbwrsis ASU Bat ONT saan Stemi) angus, 1 etek apt ser t % Bist usiibsy swhinisee8 | Canc undanss SrHonp sstsfttb 21/08/2006 SD sey ay 6. 83453 mbsmind uc Ge) aa ols Csmysaread Corning Gyre) Subyd Careig ait Cungirg, 125.0002 (SUNS eIe Gunis ) Camadareotb wig Sywam Pee UrBumaitsrs ovis isa grey Gubps Cari 3500S wrpbd gers, OMig 33 apd euLiguyst Breit Casidd Cura Satu sossis [Cag UpoCyw Bywbshd 93 aaDd symm MOBS, Carp sysr5. ob, ‘A’ aad Kym ond gyiyy stekprevsmis 3741 ays GHG Oni Cargzens : 3 bist uatbgy PODS Caray wiGgals yang ony 88808 ay 825.000¢8 (ayesysted guns B08 mbsuipe wG8) ash om, srosticrsan wiysd Sous Gs: ib ‘ SATE Coming Cds Cus, Carcke rea’ ; asssiLib 21/08/2006 Scanned with CamScannerdobar Sy Susogprberas — ost Bato 61 Guys Gain B250049, wig gebd HOOD G3 sty oncquyst re Gosign dings Pate goose MMMOMAG pine pid MynebH? od La sym aed CHOApH. oxbs ‘BY ax 199 arspraww O.OT.2 ayn @yhulg Gaur Agere ond gaty GargatCnsi. 2X sy THang aciafid COMA GOP Aysit urdAia 06/03/2009 oni 61.000¢g QUE AMIR we GI) anLpdasa CagdS Godrsai ‘A’ wppb 'B’ stamp sys Vand Os aS ajay oad. ipGanguls Codsain acysarw ayo} madeiuc 06/03/2009 otanp CoBuICL GCiojpePiuyaot owr.st.24.3 IMDB an.s1.y4 mw SPH Gain) CarEsSysi. 4. pret Cognd usnliggy suis Ganciergs umGgsfe> Cosdesasin saws st Giaats undid \Oprmaiinar 06/03/2009 oni Har ComsPur ays eprom G00 saly TySarH Brat umgpang — auiguat Bolu Csppenory Confuyd Iqwu Gaanbsslaionos, ater gst ifampsiie, 09/09/2009 ni sds, GaCaaigu undss Ogrosuins onus Cxpdgunp Ganf oo cL odémaiinst omits opmm dyBanp Cubys Gara}. Od UPd ago, sipiusiadned. gn TjPanginw, Spins 09/09/2009 Caius. AL onldsemaules sigiaica poadensn aot g7ly orsipIoIEMd oays ays oop Dan Cudpis Carat onheos QUE stun ait BILL sueiyprarsmd aT57.45 ayoond GID Osim esrgAGnysi. 5 UiGang née Cores’ a guns MC Omesgaine UIs ° —— Leann aL, aCL sxBBorautona Scanned with CamScannerHey i ML agus, npemtbetornds na vy 9 00 Ssh. MCA, oe wut ert mere) AON Fas) DL tay agg pe " : Ciegyni, Via, gpiadbibth — Orachonyy ING yh Bangi, an 9005 6p BHD CUYD, goofy, OIE, 10.00.000 ty, Gn | batey OND Coninpirveryiy SHY apy MBETINE 6.75.99 soap Chovngg) WADIA, ‘iphoug Snir, Amps Sire \matyny, SEECS TOLD oxy St Dovias proxys MCE Loxyncens, 7 Biel Goan Unkiba, eujcaiyg Wi HP Saasienss nO Cures pons Bia IY yi Sosa cxpéitde seen asta. Chesca. omy Sys Sronaneg srgy UOTE 4 Washers start Lnds§, Opsroma85 06/03/2009 ori aLNéoIe Compe, Coiiiscaa vowing SC bB ives sth, Qarisgycit@onss, j 8. WBN sonia, Cay Caviiny UIdDS Opromasioney uC ap oa Ssay5Ud stom Cunisne saves Biappa Csing MSAD. IMS SCLC Pansvin 2 pasar, stenCon Fong mb 51K Cusbasasin pie Carfuangy Shingo, Fhinmspssnay Spider — umn si Biiursingy SBucinimE Umion ot CoO Sars Bps, Briooraiiges sais, aa aaiLupb SmLYpi gu. | 5 4 5 Codsai pus Cwsdaaisaussit ane Lot 2 atu 9 99) ash BBs Covgsfed IOOIDIBS sox6 GF Goan oupaesB ay | I Scanned with CamScannerot mg) gil gs DL OCOD A 1 21/08/2006 ayghang8 angie ©7500 Quid, Coraig ayidé CaIGiD ‘A’ sayy JG. i 2 21/08/2006 wip Gongs airgdre: 525,000 Cubyd, Cusneig suns 4 OsG55 'B coms 9. | ta UrdsBasras, Byam) 1,000 3. 06/03/2009 ‘A’ a gph ; aly OrpsSusieron beHi. Hi 4 06/03/2009 *B’ sens 98 undbaBsnas 1SggBleuneé) 1,000 aly CrmiSupsbsron Cojeitny 5. 09/09/2009 Uy Gouna, a4 eptWIU oCL — ouibenaulen SIRI Hae. i 6 Hong sCL opfberessour' Cui Cureagriasrer oredsore QUES SIL. | omngulen oupaariey Scanned with CamScannerUDGE AT y INTHE COURT OF THE stnggpt¥ATEAUPSE AT VELLone 12 { LANo, les R Vijayakumar Verws Deivayani Amma PETITIONER: am, residing at R.Visyakumar, aged 40 year, gioLaieRamainyan, sing at Marans Ko Sec Dagar Villa os, Kapadia, Vellore District RESPONDENT SDeivanal Amma, aged Sy, WioSubramani, residing a ; \ Chennai Sala, Brarmmapiray, shape Katadi Taluk, Vellore District Forte reasons more filly sated ine acompanying alidavt I is therefore Frayed tat this Honorable cour may be pled o condone the delay of 114 days in Sling the petition to set aside the Ex-pae decree dated 12/08/2011 passed in the above ‘vit OSNo.S8/2010 and pass such other fuer orders under the circumstances ofthe case and thus render Justice | qu Ra ‘Counsel for Petitioner — Scanned with CamScannerJUDGE AT yj INTHE COURT OF THE, SumogotAT® ELLORE. 12 LA.No. a f IN oss” tioner/Defendant R.Vijayakumar Versus _.RespondenvPlaintift Div ant Amma TTIONER/DEFENDANT PETITION FILED ON BENALE OF WEEE CrrON 151 CPC PETITIONER: am, residing at Vijayakumar, aged 40 years, ite Remsjayam, resi Mariyamman Koil Steet, Bro spam Village and post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District , RESPONDENT S.Deivanai Amma aged 50 yeoys, Wo-Subramani, residing at Chennai Salai, Brammapuram vag, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District For the reasons more fully sated in the accompanying affidavit It is therefore prayed that this Honorable court may be pleased to set aside the Ex-parte decree dated 1208/2011 passed in the above suit ©.S.No.s32010 and pass such other further orders under the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. ao A\t tas Counsel for Petitioner ——__ ——EEE Scanned with CamScannerJUDGE AT Vp, INTHE COURT OF THE SURO AE ce ; nord IN Nosy"? -Petitioner/Defendant R.Vijayakumar Versus RespondenvPlaintitt ani Anal EFIDAVITE _Ramalnyam. iyamman 1. R.Vijayakumar, aged 40 years, So 43 j Taluk, Vellore District do hereby Koil Street, Brammapuram Village and post, Kl solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows; 1, Tam the Petit mer herein and Defenday in the ABOVE 2 I state thatthe above suit was poyyg on 25/07/2011 for filing the written statement, on that date written statement yas ot filed and I was called absent and set ex- pare, state that was bedridden with acute yer and bodily pain and I could notable to move about from the second week of July 2911 on wards, I could not able to meet my counsel, | further state that I defended the gqother case filed by the husband of the Respondent herein and I was under the bonafde belief that the time was extended for filing the written statement in the above sui, and I have been working as driver and I have to go for various places due to the nature of my work, hence I could not able to meet my counsel, to my surprise I received the summons of this Honorable court in EP.No.125/2011, only after the receiving of summons I came to know that the above suit ‘was decreed ex-parte on 12/08/2011, then I met my counsel and I came to know all above said facts of the case, the failure to file the written statement and failure appear before this honorable court is not willful or wanton but due to circumstances beyond my control, Tam advised fair chance to succeed in the abave case, now I am filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte Decree along with the written statement, but there is a delay of 114 days in filing the petition, the delay isnot willful or wanton but due to circumstances beyond my control. Hence it has becomes just and necessary to condone the delay of 114 Scanned with CamScannerey days in filing the Petition to set ose aa Decree dated 12/08/2011, unless the delay is condoned I will be put ropa 9S and hardship 3. Wis therefore prayed tat HP MOAN cour maybe pleased to condone the delay of 114 days in iting the pon Side the By, arte decree dated 12/08/2011 passed in the above stit OS: oss0® ind TSS such other further orders unde the ot 1sog, circumstances fhe as ands = this the gh Solemly alfmed and signed before mEHSthe 4 day of January 2011 at Vellore Scanned with CamScannerj ona «Petitioner Defendant --Respondenv/PlaimifT HONER/DEFENDANT ua MMF ABE 40 years, Ss tte Ramsjoyam, residing at Mariyamman “PUFIM Village and Post, Katpadi ‘Taluk, Vellore District do hereby mane sincerely state asflioy, Tam the Pet er Persn nd Defendant in the above suit F stale that the above suit ay Posted on 25/07/2011 for filing the written utement, on that date written statement wag ot filed and 1 was called absent and set ex- Paris I state that 1 was bedridden with ace ver and bodily pain and I could notable to move about from the second week of July 011 on ‘wards, I could not able to meet my Counsel, I further state that I defended the another case fied by the husband of the Respondent herein and 1 was under the nude belie thatthe time was extended for filing the written statement in the above suit and Ihave been working as driver and 1 hhave to go for various places due tothe nature of my work, hence I could notable to meet my counsel, to my surprise | received the summons of this Honorable court in E.P.No.125/201 1, only after the receiving of summons I eae to know that the above suit was deereed ex-parte on 12/08/2011 then I met counsel and I came to know all above id facts ofthe case, the failure to file the len statement and failure appear before said fac 5, his honorable court isnot wilful or wanton! due to circumstances beyond my contro, this honorable court is | am advised fair chance to succeed in the aPO¥€€255, now I am fling the petition to set am advised fair ch: ong with the Wile statement, but there is a delay of 114 aside the ex-parte Decree alot ays fn fling the petion, the delay is v0! “ll or wanton but duc to circumstances in filing the petition, beyond 1. Henee it has becomes i 8Nd necessary’ to set aside the ex-parte "yond my control. Hence Scanned with CamScanners the Peon iy atty 19/2011. Unless Howed 1 will he put to irreparable loss Decree dated 1 and hantship. prayed tat tis HOPI assed i the he above shove suit 0.8.No.58/2010 3. Mis therefore “Our may be pleased to set aside the Ex- rte decree dated 12/08/2011 e and pass such secumstanees other further orders under the eteus™°°°S °F the case and thus render Justic stice Solemnly affirmed and signed before me This the 4, +e en day of January 2011 at Vellore Scanned with CamScannereS ee IN THE COURT OF THE SUho gp NATE JUDGE AT VELLO 0; SNnsg2010 Deivayani Ammal Plait Vers Defendant 1, The sit or eting the Detendan poy the sum of RS1, 05,550 (Rs.81.775 + RSS2778) with farther an future ners gga ate il date of realization and for Airecting the defendant to pay the east of this «uit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. % This Defendant specially denies th eit alegtions made inthe Plant save “hose that are specially admited herein and pus the Paint to stct proof of the some : 3. This Defendant specifically denies pam 3 of the Plaint and state that this Defendant never barrowed any amount from te Plast this Defendant never executed any promissory note in favor of the Phintiff mach less the alleged promissory note dated 2108/2006, further this Defendant never agreed to repay the sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.3/- per hundred per month, the Plaintiff is to strictly prove the allegations in para 3 of the Plain. 4. This Defendant specifically denies para 4 of Plant and state that this Defendant never barrowed any amount from the Planiff, this Defendant never executed any Promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff much less the alleged promissory note dated 21/08/2006, further this Defendant never agreed to repay the sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.3/- per hundred per month, the Plaintiff i to strictly prove the allegations in para 4 ofthe Plant, 5. This Defendant specifically denies the allegations made in para 5 of your notice and state that this Defendant never made any endorsements on the alleged two Promissory note on 06/03/2008, the endorsement are forged and fabricated. Scanned with CamScanneray ses hy nis Defendant spe a Meet tw promissory notes dated forgot and fabricated ay 6 syns!30n6 ate sup “pported by consideration, on HE issory notes NO COI, tess of the alleged promisson” es " Was passed, and the Plaintill has come to tend money 10 ti vo sure of cme 10 Fed MOMS HUD halt Which elearly proves that the notes are not supported Dy com promissory" this Defenant isnot Fable to pay a" 2, "iy "and ereated and forged one, Hence iso Faiity tobe cleared on the part of this Defendant, 4, This Defendant was served in mi ash his Defendant having regular and figent income as salary as such THEE 9 ne gy umes Sl or necessity for this Defendant to serow many om Pint TH AES TSIG) 2 yg acre bythe Pla tf and her husband as such those 2° invalid and not supported by consideration. There is no met in this suit and the stil lable 19 he dismissed inlimini {his Defendant reserves Fight 1¢ the sldtional written statement in future 6, [is therefore prayed that this Hor-vable court may be pleased to dismiss the suit With the cost of this Defendant under tc citcunstanges of the ease and thus render Justice eer” Counsel for Defendant Defendant I. the Defendant do hereby deciic that the facts slated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and sign his verification this the 4 day of January 2011 at Vellore Defendant Scanned with CamScanner1 tHe coun 7 OF the 108 Monn, re gupce, VEU m Mere pirat? en A, yt Thing, peel oe Tench nagar eet audgas VOL Spay upon the 24. 0 2019 8.de 209 4 of Su Nut yyy 9872020 M. - pefendant This Prese, ee 0 in the Sn ming co 9 on 19 ring before ™ WME, Adve, a, Karthikoy "6.2019 yop final hearing pe .v-Rathin? n and Mvocate gor the plaintife : . = The defendant Rs.50, 000/ to neot que marriage expenses has borrowed ‘ From €e PAINELES and on tye same day he executed two demand Promissory note eac fl Y noke each for Rs.25,000/~ ang agreed to repay the amount with 36% interest per Serest pet annum on demand and eq 6.3.2009, the defendant has paid Rs-1000/~ towards interest tor each promissory note and thereafter in spite of repeated emands and reqost made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not repaid the anount and on 9.9.2009, the plaintiff has issued a Advocate notice and the defendant has received the notice, but he failed to comply the demands in the notice and so the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,05,550.00 with subseqent interest and cost. o ¢ averments in the written sttament filed by the defendant reads ‘the defendant never bortewed Rs.50,000/~ from the plaintife land the defendant never executed aay Promissory notes to plaintiff and found in the PFOMOSsiory notes and as well as as follows:~ that the signatures ae Superintendent of Copyist Scanned with CamScannernot or ene suit promos tO "9 Aste 31g pong vd CofC y “noteg are forged and ed one ia true at fabri nether alleged promstet no Conmideration was passed 1s true and correct? C4 to jaane tft *0 autt claim Ra,1,05,550/~ with trom the Jd weit 2. whether the pl ise subsequent interest i 4. to what other relic nai APL ea the plaintift S.deivaye! win tecate opt ae ue s. J a8 serie te genthiteumar examined ®° "2 and parked Ex.Al to Ex-A6. On | whe cide of the defendant "No 0F22 €71UENC0", Doeusents marked + MLL. con 21,8.2006, the defendant has Botioved Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff ‘and executed Ex.A1 and EX-A2; OM §.3,2003, the defendant has paid Re.1000/- towards interest for each promissory note endorsement in prerossiory note Ex.A3 and EX.AS, he has not repaid the anount with Anterest and hence Advocate notice 52.AS issued to him and he failed to settle the anount. The plaintiff by letting oral evidence and by filing documentary evidence has proved the execution of the promissory note by | ‘the defendant. Thus the Plaintiff has discharged his initial burden. In the circumstances, the presumption” under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrunents Ret arises. The defendant has to establish his defence and ‘the onus is upon iim, The defendant, has not let in oral evidence to prove his defence. In the ciccumstances, suit may be decreed. 6.2. The learned counsel for the pefendant has not submitted oral argument and Anspite of this courtrg direction, the defendant has failed to file written argument. ye Superintensont of Copyish Scanned with CamScannerdM 7 un ot © proms e000). SM Pladntiey epot_ the derondan’ mo rate 2 TY hot pag Ne PEM cep gn 21-8-2006 and st S86. oy get FOF 25,000) 5 ening to pay inter teva ines, “hnum and on 663.2055, te detandant. As re iid a Ne aia an OF cach promtanoy beapite, repeated cenindel ® SAC they TAY Me anoint Hen anaes aes praia BEM edcenaeea et MAY AUCH RAT ga pyar prominaory notes) BAX i, PON Leda MY PEOMORBLOLY ee Nocate notice ERAS one 8 extension ne At EGAS. Im the gyi, pew i/plainelee nas d2p0% FOE the ceca 67 the SRECUELON of tx Nemineory notes by ene defendant > Sipt of Rs. 50,000/-. . oe ANd aig, endorsement in EX.AL and : PEST Chae gy 2148,2006, the defendant D8 notes each sox ns.25,000/-, the defendant’ ® Stood a8 attestor jag pw2 filled up the pronossiory oS 28 82009 the detenane bas paid s.1000/- towards Sach Prosossiory and Pv2 weitten the endorsement on the back the pronossiory notes. romoss by to PH? tn, in nis evidence rowed R, b 50,000/~ from the platnt Promossiory, ether and broth, ‘ Rote and Side of €4ng cross examination no suggestion put ween himself and defendant. To make his there must be an evidence to show that PW2 has Pitcate the defendant. In the absence of the sane, Ssion or deniat is not sugticient to disbelieve the evidence of The attesting witnesse: therefore, lat there was enmity ber unbelieve, motive to falsely im Pw2, evidences suage: ‘S are nother and brother of the defendant, She plaintift nas not chosen’ to examine them as witnesses on es side. In this case, the Plaintiff nas cane forvard with the ples/assertion that the defendant has executed the suit pronissory note for the Receipt of Rs.50,000/-, the initial burden of proving it is on fhe plaintife. re will not shift. 1€ 0 evidence is let in, ‘plaintift WAIL fai (See Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act). So, the Guty to prove the execution of the promissory note is primarily on the Plaintiff. P.W.1 and Pw2 in their evidence has clearly stated about the nature of the transaction between plaintiff and defendant. so, the Plaintiff has discharged his initial burden. 6.4. Once, the plaintiff discharges hia initial burden of execution of the promissory note, then the burden ‘automatically shifts on to the defendant to disprove not only execution but also to rebut the legal presumption available under section UA of the Negotiable Instrunents Me “50 SuperiMendont of Copyist Scanned with CamScannerWe Hate a oa IME Ooch that thie miqnature® finn a Ol ny forged one, 108 Ane Moment ae fiien of 0 sie caper a7 LL t0 antanitan ene forvery of re ny nie abl ‘ein! "8 Ww tn wntabLiah the Fart y, has oot Yan on anal ited aianatares te the ol wo by peo the forannte VOrK6 ouinton, Hore Ov, topartnntl mibiton, How re torewtant an no 9 : satan lee tp, ov by 8 2010) 19 T an by hata ot Ln gn tok © tntoronea that the ‘anghad the dtofantant cannot be © evant. 0 pe at WO EU or Anta whe witness bon, net Ny Tho Cobtowing to the 1 postoratods ™Mre varky to the mult dows not Lect and state M8 nod by the thor anined DY M40, 9 prasumption would arise tn not correct, appear in wit "en86 on oath and doen not offer himself to be cron that case net up by him xcept. the detonca of forgetYr © other: ct rcunstances, whatsoever, has been brought by the defendant ' rebut the 1egal presumption. of course, the statutory presuaptlon 32 rebuttable one, To rebut such presumption, thern mut be some Paterlals or circumstances to be brought on record, But no such clrcunstanct, whatsoever, haa been brought on record by the defendant to rebut tM statutory presumption. tence, this court is of the view that the defendant has not discharged his burden in proving the forgery. The defendant has received prior sult notice £x.A5, hay not sent reply notice. If really the defence setup by the ce iu true, the defendant ought to have sent reply notice but, det inmediavely of should have taken crisinal action against the plaintiff, but in this case the defendant has plaintiff, it eri initiated any legal action against (tes uncertainty in the defence setup by the defendant 6.8, In this case the plaintiff py oral and documentary evidence Wy Proved that the defandant has executod promissory notes Ex.Al and Ex.A2. ‘Thus this court holds that defendar has borrowed Rs.$0/000/- from the Plaintiff, On the other hand, the defendant has failed fo prove the defence setup by him. For the reagoys stated above this court holds that the plaintiff is eatitied to the geysef as prayed for in this suit, These fosues are answered accordingly, yo Superintendent of Copyist Scanned with CamScannerne P Bay pse1+05/550/- to & 50, 000188 per ante © se aah per annum on RS- fee and thereafter 6¥ Liu phe date of realisation: na defendant 48 direc, the eet ected oa Pay coge of this suit to plaintiff: pes by 72 PY TARCOP and aye led by Pe in s were nade over by Re ond he open reetton: Fen Cour eect Ton 2 tym gay of June 2019. oo Ab remains i hist se LEDS SHABOG on - peaneivayant Ansal pow.2 Senthil Kumar vist documents filed on the si ex.ai .. 218.2006 Promissory note Eek 2006 Promissory note exAs .. Endorsement in premossiory neta Eun! .. Endorsement in promossiory act Advocate Notice Acknowledgenent, Lig sdst of uitnesses examined on the side of the defendant: Decuncnts marked on the side of the ‘afendant:~ Nil rams pte os ‘Superintendent of Copyist min Scanned with CamScannerpy ras COURT CF THE PRINCE Present: Thirwa.s Peincing |, By vEnLony oH TD Deb. 7 oP yaatosudgo, Vellore! me a j Tuesday, en + the 29) 9 ayy gg sue 200 Ortainay Si yg, gg i210 at donaly #944 sbowt 30 cfomant SEIN SESS 106, js, Sabsamant Many tan,‘ W/S\di Taluk, Vellore District. + Yaep ~ Plaintife “Ven gaya Romar, aged about 40 yea, Ren ijuras Village, Raeppal $70, qptes,Ramanusomy wardomman Kol Mibtfeiore biatriet, = Defendant guit is filed £0F reeoy, aos "ry of gy. 051550.00 with subsequent ‘resentation ate of Fi 3006 06.03.2009 and 109.03; 2o09' at. Brannapuran Village, Katpadi raluk, sais suit is coming on 19.6.2019 ger ginal hearing before me in the A.Karthikeyan, Advocate gr the plaintiff and Mr.V.Rathina ee for the defendant and plaintif£”s side argument heard and dent's side written argument not filed and after perusal of entire DECREE 1. that the suit be and the sne is hereby decreed; 2. that the defendant is directed to pay Rs. 1,05,550/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum con Rs. 50,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decre and thereafter 6% per annun on Rs. 50,000/~ from the date of decree till the date of realisations 3. that the defendant do pey #5 10/021/- to the plaintiff oe Superintendent of Copyist towards costs. , Scanned with CamScanner‘Stamp for Powe! a7 2p, | COME mea not Plead not 109,00 we or penile HE 20, a 923.90 | a esta - 2 Al ot y Given under mY hand snd " a Court, this the 25th day of une 2019. ® Z 4 ie Pele “4 ‘Pal Supordinate Judge, + Yeltores > rolit . Decree Cia | ovs.t6.88/2010 rie Sear A keer cg sgh EH an ESTOS HOE Superindhdant of Copyist omens reiterate | atone star st aatiirnen Stones Oreent= = Scanned with CamScanner——— { In the Court of the 84), tudge pollen. . , pehetyang im 518! ve Drm, ous Patitioner & & Vis anny : Deayatuma: rz Renpondent Baan Peon OM adr Oe Be HCP 4. Sult No. OS yo SB) alo a $ Bet vay > sed nal 2. Potitioner Sen af Sat rape a Ub Yrew\etan’ ak: “Cheney om) th Brommapad sare bP ali § Respondent R Vifaya uns 49, gone a lake Ramanujan, Hinde, Me oe ketl Sires Bramma paca 4 an Kakpadt ~paluk . Respondll/em a S Daw ofDecree | ig 8 Boll 4 weet appeal has been \ preferred from Die the decree 8. Payment or adjustment madi =Nfce itany — 6. Previous G application if any| - — with date and te result i ee Se ere 6. a) Transfer of Nee docreo 6. b) Insolvency No ifany i [re Scanned with CamScannerald a ' 5 Peeves. Amant iH CLabeaak oy Re biveef Werte t fal _ Bacfeorn yemeeedeah hye, i \ Anlrveahaon, SO ROL WJ tea ‘ RR Werth BAM reds] ese OM el URE] Cekkeg Rocovevan: Bath | ia a q Cok AP Doover. CPM” leo . Mampi becker © Abe — ne 3 ¥ iq ate *_| ___— “ui Tate a a8 © Againals Fhe Repppende b the Bp ts paige thas [Rte ited ble coho be pleted to pass on ordre fer Ute attechouent 8) the $ chute eer 24 | ete then preety) ef Mie OY F | Rapin Pa PT att Su am 3 le a ft, fhe Bale ea & land « ecdamabo be P 2 Saale sper Oe hale wf Me sare Pom rm nen lisehion of [le Dewres- cummocub- Undue ender 21 Rule bb wtb ere fod vendia. Cublp ce O bok — 20) Gwouadn \ [ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER. Mimonen. Bit do horoby doclaro that tho facts best of my our knowladge and bolifo and | / Wo nO) Hw ouneai PETITIONER. 1Wo Pas DUNE / stated above aro true to the ‘sign this vorification. i piace: Vellore oate: | ~II-\l ae Scanned with CamScannersna / D6n6 o> 2Duny- poLuny- Goseton bros, pres gecen, Garryns vf °? vias 92 aamcuney oat rdw arene y 865" 8) Mosy wow Aone hes ‘tab D- Rb, 41 ope: Orians DP Sap 26 on oO: lah, BE) OomBeer O05 -S) Hor Bo penGrim Yon Ro 4. rn vehst Det Ono 25) , DIBEVI- — Conjnecs oo7 a ey @ounw eae DOA Pose Brom won HME CS ose 033, nes F iy Ot BS SE be Ethane Desvr Bie em avpe, “oanée Dv ee Soe ee Bt asl 4 F086) 5) neared 08 Seg fo ee cian ‘o)) Bonn) LPS Gu) AGES Gor) Gn Bevdn@v p53 Do jank - ko VERE 349 seh. By. Sed Bo Gofp Ib% Eon) OD “ary” @Q2Q01 Cac saya Bees)” ypovennyiin * 09) ay sree tae oly Qrenweg, 5 8 giv evn'oa febwolak ET Boob, pall tenon ot F, the pebddonn Pere ee (Wil the Pack Shuked above otra Folge bere of my know ledge end ont Patgn Its Vert perackinn a We thady naga Pet dS ores [pip °F Scanned with CamScanner