- (1.) This second appeal is focussed by the original Defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2008 passed in A.S. No. 8 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in O.S. No. 193 of 2006. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
(2.) The factual matrix relating to this case could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-based on the suit promissory note. (b) The written statement was filed denying the signatures in the promissory note by the Defendant. (c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court. (d) The Plaintiff/Balasubramanian examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2/Subramanian and P.W.3/Ramalingam and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The Defendant/Perumal examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2/Sezhian and D.W.3/Prabhakaran and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. (e) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
(3.) Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that both the Courts fell into error in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence establishing unambiguously and unequivocally the plea of alibi as put forth before the Courts by the Defendants.;