Judgment : The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below has preferred the second appeal. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount due under a promissory note. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 from the plaintiff on 7.3.1986 and executed the suit document agreeing to repay the principal with 12% interest. The defendant paid a sum of Rs.25 only on 1.3.1989 towards interest and it was also endorsed. The plaintiff also sent a notice calling upon the defendant to pay the balance amount and for which no reply was received. 3. The defendant filed a written statement, admitting the borrowal of the amount from the plaintiff and also the execution of the suit promissory note. He also admitted the payment of Rs.25 towards interest. However, he has stated that the suit is barred by limitation. Apart from that the entire amount has been cleared, on 5.4.1990 and the plaintiff had also executed a receipt and as such no amount is due and payable. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence and the documents, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved against this, the defendant preferred A.S.No.6 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar and the appeal was also dismissed and aggrieved against this, the defendant has now come forward with the present second appeal. 5. The defendant has raised the following substantial questions of law: • (a) Whether the Courts below are legally right without considering and give findings by going into the documentary evidence as advised by the defendant in toto. • (b) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in appreciating the valuable piece of evidence by way of documentary evidence which is marked as Ex.B-1 on the side of defendant/ appellant dated 5.4.1990. • (c) Whether the Courts below had committed as an error of law without rejecting the plaint itself as barred as law limitation underO.7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: • (i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation. • (b) whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true. 7. Points: It is admitted that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A-1. The points that arise for consideration are: • (i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation. • (b) whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true. 7. Points: It is admitted that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A-1. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.25 was paid towards interest on 1.3.1989 and endorsed the document. The plaintiff sent a legal notice under Ex.A-3 and in spite of repeated demands, the amount was not paid by the defendant. The plaintiff examined himself as a witness and also filed Exs.A-1 to A-4. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and contended that the suit is barred by time and also pleaded discharge. According to him, on 5.4.1990, the entire amount has been paid to the plaintiff and obtained a receipt from him. Hence, no amount is due and payable. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant/ appellant first contained that the suit is barred by time. The 1st endorsement on the promissory note was made on 1.3.1989 and the suit was filed on 28.2.1992 with insufficient stamps. The plaint was returned for payment of proper Court-fee and thereafter proper Court-fee was paid with delay and the application filed by the plaintiff to condone the delay was also allowed and later the suit was numbered. Under the circumstances, when once the plaintiff has filed the suit on time, it is no longer open to the defendant to contend that the suit is barred by time. 9. The next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire amount has been discharged and a receipt was also obtained under Ex.B-1. The learned counsel stated that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the amount has not been paid and unfortunately the burden has been wrongly placed on the defendant. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant. When once the execution of the document is admitted, the burden is only upon the defendant to show that the liability is discharged. No doubt, Ex.B-1 has been pressed into service by the defendant but the signature in the document was denied by P.W.1 in the course of evidence. When once the execution of the document is admitted, the burden is only upon the defendant to show that the liability is discharged. No doubt, Ex.B-1 has been pressed into service by the defendant but the signature in the document was denied by P.W.1 in the course of evidence. Under the circumstances, the defendant ought to have examined either the attestor or the scribe of Ex.B-1 in order to show that it was executed only by P.W.1. There is no reasonable explanation on the part of the D.W.1, why they were not examined as witnesses to prove Ex.B-1. Apart from that the Court below had compared the admitted signature of the plaintiff with the signature in Ex.B-1 and came to the conclusion that it is not the signature of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, Ex.B-1 has not been properly proved by the defendant. Moreover, if really Ex.B-1 was executed by the plaintiff, nothing prevented the defendant to get back the suit promissory note for a period of nearly 2 years. D.W.1 attempted to state that P.W.1 informed him that the pronote was missing and he would trace out and hand over the same. When D.W.1 stated that he had obtained a receipt under Ex.B-1, nothing prevented him from taking another letter from P.W.1 to indicate that the suit promissory note was missing. The absence of any such document on the part of the defendant would only indicate that the theory or discharge is nothing, but false. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence as well as the documents and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings. Hence, these points are answered accordingly. 10. For the reason stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.