Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff, Indian Bank, filed a suit in O.S. No. 408 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli, claiming a sum of Rs. 2, 968.89 on the promissory note exhibit A-7, dated March 15, 1976. The allegations in the plaint are as follows : The defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 2, 000 on March 2, 1970, and executed a promissory note exhibit A-1 from the plaintiff's branch office at Tennur. For due repayment of the loan, as a collateral security, the defendants have executed the pronote on the same date in favour of the plaintiff-bank. After giving credit to the amounts paid by the defendants towards the loan, the amount still due and payable by them comes to Rs. 4, 331.87 together with interest calculated upto March 10, 1979, as per the ledger page maintained by the plaintiff. For the amount due by the defendants as on March 15, 1976, the defendants have executed a suit pronote, exhibit A-7, promising to pay the same specified therein together with interest stipulated therein on demand to the plaintiff. The suit pronote is supported by consideration and is in time. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed and neglected to pay off their dues, the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is stated as follows : The plaint is silent with reference to the particulars of the amount borrowed, rate of interest as well as the amount mentioned in the alleged promissory note. It is true that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 2, 000 in the year 1970. The plaintiff has not stated what was the amount paid by the defendants, how the interest was calculated and how the sum of Rs. 4, 331.87 was arrived at. For the loan of Rs. 2, 000 in the year 1970, for which the defendants have paid enormous amounts and after deducting the amounts paid, the balance cannot be Rs. 4, 331.87. The interest claimed is against law and the Interest Act as well as the Usurious Loans Act. The plaintiff has issued a letter dated November 30, 1972, stating that the balance was only Rs. 702.10. While such is the case, it is not known how the plaintiff is claiming a sum of Rs. 4, 331.87. The interest claimed is against law and the Interest Act as well as the Usurious Loans Act. The plaintiff has issued a letter dated November 30, 1972, stating that the balance was only Rs. 702.10. While such is the case, it is not known how the plaintiff is claiming a sum of Rs. 4, 331.87. The execution of the alleged promissory note dated March 15, 1976, exhibit A-7 is denied. At the time of original borrowing and at the time of payment, the plaintiff used to get the signature in various printed blank forms and on revenue stamps as well. The said promissory note might have been concocted with the available signatures on the blank printed forms and the promissory note is not supported by any consideration. If the claim of the plaintiff is true, the plaintiff could have obtained the signature on the ledger page itself by affixing the revenue stamp. That is not the case of the plaintiff. There was no demand and no notice prior to the filing of the suit. The non-issue of any notice itself will belie the case of the plaintiff. The suit claim is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, framed the following issues for consideration : (1) Whether, this pronote dated March 2, 1970, is not supported by consideration ? (2) Whether the interest claimed is usurious and against law ? (3) Whether the defendant did not execute the pronote dated March 15, 1976 ? (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (5) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ? In support of the plaintiff's case, the manager of the Tennur branch office, Indian Bank, was examined as P.W. 1 and one M. M. Sankaran, clerk-in-charge of the transaction of the said branch was examined as P.W. 2. The first promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2, 000 was marked as exhibit A-1, copy of the ledger account of the plaintiff's bank as exhibit A-2. Exhibit A-3 dated December 8, 1970, is the letter written by the second defendant to the plaintiff bank. Exhibit A-4 dated December 9, 1970, is the letter written by the second defendant to the plaintiff bank. 2, 000 was marked as exhibit A-1, copy of the ledger account of the plaintiff's bank as exhibit A-2. Exhibit A-3 dated December 8, 1970, is the letter written by the second defendant to the plaintiff bank. Exhibit A-4 dated December 9, 1970, is the letter written by the second defendant to the plaintiff bank. Exhibit A-5 dated December 31, 1976, is the revival letter executed by the first defendant to the plaintiff and exhibit A-7 dated March 15, 1976, is the suit promissory note executed by the defendants to the plaintiff. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that the amount borrowed in the year 1970, has to be repaid by the defendants in 12 equal monthly instalments. Exhibit A-2 is the true copy of the ledger maintained in the bank. After having paid four instalments, the defendants defaulted. P.W. 1 informed the defendants that there is a due of instalments arrears of Rs. 702.10. After correspondence, on January 30, 1975, the defendants had executed exhibits A-5 and A-6 which are the confirmation letters, written by the defendants for the balance amount due. It is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that on March 15, 1976, the defendants have executed a fresh promissory note under exhibit A-7. They also informed that the interest rate is depending on the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India then and there. They denied the averments that the bank authorities have obtained signatures of the defendants on blank forms and they subsequently filled it up.On the other hand, the first defendant was examined as D.W. 1. He admitted having executed exhibit A-1 pronote at the time of borrowing. He deposed that their signatures have been obtained on blank paper. At the time when they signed exhibit A-7, the form was not filled up. It was blank at that time. The signature found in exhibit A-5 was also obtained on blank paper. In the same way the signature of the second defendant was also obtained on blank paper for exhibit A-6. The learned District Munsif, inasmuch as the defendants have admitted that exhibit A-1 is supported by consideration and there is no contrary evidence to the effect that it is not supported by consideration, held that the suit pronote dated March 2, 1970, is supported by consideration and found the issue in favour of the plaintiff. The learned District Munsif, inasmuch as the defendants have admitted that exhibit A-1 is supported by consideration and there is no contrary evidence to the effect that it is not supported by consideration, held that the suit pronote dated March 2, 1970, is supported by consideration and found the issue in favour of the plaintiff. Regarding issue No. 2, the trial court has held that the interest claimed is not excessive and it is not usurious, hence the issue was held in favour of the plaintiff. With regard to issue No. 3 on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1, it held that exhibit A-1 was executed by the defendants as renewal of the earlier debt under exhibit A-1 and found in favour of the plaintiff. With regard to issue No. 4, inasmuch as the court has held that exhibit A-4 was executed by the defendants, the court came to the conclusion that the suit claim cannot be barred by limitation and held in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the above findings, the trial court decreed the suit with costs as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, dated August 16, 1980, the first defendant preferred A.S. No. 49 of 1981, before the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli. After narrating the pleadings of the parties, the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli, framed the following points for consideration :(1) Whether the promissory note dated March 15, 1976, is true, valid and binding on the defendants ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (3) To what relief ? The defendants even though admitted the borrowing, denied the correctness of the accounts maintained by the respondent-bank. It is to be seen that the date of execution of the suit promissory note, exhibit A-7, dated March 15, 1976, and the amount outstanding have not been shown in the ledger account, exhibit A-2, maintained by the bank. Exhibit B-1 which is marked in I.A. No. 427 of 1981 before the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, by consent of both parties, was issued by the respondent-bank. Even though in exhibit A-7 the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 2, 968.69, there is no such corresponding entry in exhibit B-1 on the relevant date, namely, March 15, 1976. The appellate court has also pointed out discrepancies with respect to payment of interest. Even though in exhibit A-7 the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 2, 968.69, there is no such corresponding entry in exhibit B-1 on the relevant date, namely, March 15, 1976. The appellate court has also pointed out discrepancies with respect to payment of interest. It is the definite case of the defendants that their signatures were obtained over the stamps on unfilled form at the time of execution of exhibit A-1 in the year 1970. The lower appellate court has pointed out that the rate of interest has been filled up as 18 per cent. in exhibit A-7 as against what is stated as 9-1/2 per cent. in exhibit A-1 and also the rate of interest was typewritten by a different machine, whereas the other particulars of the sum borrowed are typewritten by another machine. It was argued before the lower appellate court that there was a material alteration in the suit promissory note. Hence section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be made applicable. It was also pointed out before the lower appellate court that no notice was sent to the defendants prior to the filing of the suit. If any notice was sent to the defendants, they would have made all these contentions in the reply. For the reasons explained, the Sub-Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the true execution of exhibit A-7, so exhibit A-7 is not a valid promissory note.With regard to point No. 2, the plaintiff-bank very much relied upon exhibits A-5 and A-6. It is pointed out by the lower appellate court that there is no pleading regarding execution of exhibits A-5 and A-6 in the plaint, and both the documents were not filed along with the plaint. Both the documents were before the court for the first time only on July 26, 1980, during the trial of the suit. In the absence of specific pleading regarding exhibits A-5 and A-6 either in the body of the plaint or in the cause of action para, the lower appellate court held that those documents cannot be relied upon by the respondent-bank in order to save limitation. Therefore, rejecting exhibits A-5 and A-6 as unacceptable, the lower appellate court decided point No. 2 in favour of the defendants and against the bank. Therefore, rejecting exhibits A-5 and A-6 as unacceptable, the lower appellate court decided point No. 2 in favour of the defendants and against the bank. On the basis of the above conclusion, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, dated October 31, 1981, the plaintiff-Indian Bank filed the above second appeal before this court. Mr. Thambusamy, learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to exhibit A-7, vehemently contended that the same has been validly executed and supported by consideration. He also very much relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as exhibits A-4 and A-5 letters written by the defendants. According to him, the judgment of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, cannot be sustained in the light of the execution of exhibit A-7 promissory note. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the suit cannot be maintained on the basis of exhibit A-7 which, according to the learned counsel, was utilised by the bank for the purpose of the case. He also brought to the knowledge of the court the material alteration found in exhibit A-7.It is the evidence of the first defendant as D.W. 1 that he had executed exhibit A-1 on March 12, 1970. At the time of execution of exhibit A-1, the plaintiff-bank has obtained the signatures of the defendants on blank stamped papers. According to him, the signature found in exhibit A-7 was one such. It is to be noted that when the appeal was pending before the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, exhibit B-1 copy of the accounts from March 2, 1970, to March 10, 1979, in the name of V. Chockkalingam, furnished by the bank has been marked by consent. Neither in exhibit B-1 nor in exhibit A-2 there was any corresponding entry on March 15, 1976, with respect to the sum mentioned in exhibit A-7. Had exhibit A-7 been executed by the defendants, the amount mentioned therein would have found place in the ledger account produced by the bank in exhibit A-2 or in exhibit B-1. Apart from this, the very looking at exhibit A-7 shows that the same was filled up at a later date. As pointed out by the lower appellate court, the rate of interest was typewritten on a different machine. Apart from this, the very looking at exhibit A-7 shows that the same was filled up at a later date. As pointed out by the lower appellate court, the rate of interest was typewritten on a different machine. Likewise, exhibit A-7 does not contain the name and address of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In other words, except the bare signatures of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, nothing has been mentioned in exhibit A-7. It is true that the plaintiff has relied upon exhibits A-5 and A-6. In this respect, it has to be noted that nothing has been mentioned in the plaint regarding exhibits A-5 and A-7. In other words, there are no pleadings with reference to exhibits A-5 and A-6. After hearing the arguments of both counsel and after perusing the records, I am of the view that the plaintiff has not proved exhibit A-7. As pointed by me, there is no corresponding entry with respect to the sum mentioned in exhibit A-7 either in exhibit A-2 or in exhibit B-1. There is also material discrepancy in the rate of interest. Moreover, absolutely there is no pleading regarding exhibits A-5 and A-6 in the plaint and in the cause of action column also there is no pleading about these documents. The plaint clearly shows that these documents have not been filed along with the plaint. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the bank did not send any notice prior to the filing of the suit. In view of the points mentioned above, I am in entire agreement with the findings and conclusion reached by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, consequently the second appeal fails and is, accordingly dismissed with costs.