Suit on Promissory Notes – Validity – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Burden of Proof In a suit for recovery based on promissory notes, once execution of the promissory notes is established and supported by evidence of the scribe and attestors, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the scribe and attestor as P.Ws.2 and 3, thereby establishing execution and consideration. The burden of proof shifted to the defendant, who failed to rebut the same. (Paras 3, 5)

advocatemmmohan

Suit on Promissory Notes – Validity – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Burden of Proof

In a suit for recovery based on promissory notes, once execution of the promissory notes is established and supported by evidence of the scribe and attestors, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the scribe and attestor as P.Ws.2 and 3, thereby establishing execution and consideration. The burden of proof shifted to the defendant, who failed to rebut the same. (Paras 3, 5)

---

Forgery – Plea – Failure to Prove

The defendant raised a plea that the promissory notes were forged and fabricated. However, no steps were taken to substantiate the said plea, including failure to seek comparison of signatures. Mere denial of execution without supporting evidence is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. (Paras 2, 5)

---

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar – Distinct Cause of Action

The plea that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC was rejected on the ground that the earlier suit and the present suit were based on different causes of action arising out of different transactions. Hence, the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC is not attracted. (Para 3)

---

Concurrent Findings – No Interference

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the promissory notes are genuine and supported by valid consideration. The concurrent findings were affirmed, as no error or infirmity was found. (Paras 3, 5)

---

Second Appeal – Absence of Substantial Question of Law

In the absence of any substantial question of law and in view of the proper appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below, the High Court declined to interfere under Section 100 CPC. (Para 6)

---

Result

Second Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. (Para 7)