Suit on Promissory Note – Admission of Execution – Plea of Repayment – Failure to Prove Where the defendant admits execution of the promissory note and receipt of the amount, the burden lies on him to prove repayment of the debt. In the present case, though the appellant pleaded that the entire debt was discharged by way of instalments, no documentary or oral evidence was adduced to substantiate such plea. Consequently, the contention of repayment was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. (Paras 2, 3, 7)

advocatemmmohan

Suit on Promissory Note – Admission of Execution – Plea of Repayment – Failure to Prove

Where the defendant admits execution of the promissory note and receipt of the amount, the burden lies on him to prove repayment of the debt. In the present case, though the appellant pleaded that the entire debt was discharged by way of instalments, no documentary or oral evidence was adduced to substantiate such plea. Consequently, the contention of repayment was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. (Paras 2, 3, 7)

---

Limitation – Acknowledgment of Part Payment – Extension of Limitation

Though the suit was filed beyond the original period of limitation, the endorsement of part payment made on the promissory note operates as an acknowledgment, thereby extending the period of limitation for a further period of three years from the date of such endorsement. The evidence of the witness to such endorsement remained unshaken and was accepted by both the Courts below. (Paras 4, 8)

---

Evidence – Failure to Rebut Plaintiff’s Case

The defendant failed to produce any evidence to disprove the execution of the promissory note or the endorsement of part payment. The initial stand of seeking comparison of signatures was also not pursued. The findings of the Courts below accepting the plaintiff’s case are based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 7, 8)

---

Concurrent Findings – No Interference

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff on the issues of execution, repayment, and limitation. No ground is made out to disbelieve such findings of fact. (Paras 3, 4, 9)

---

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law

The issues raised in the second appeal relate to findings of fact and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the absence of any legal infirmity, the High Court declined to interfere. (Para 9)

---

Result

Second Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. (Para 10)