JUDGMENT : The present respondent had instituted a suit in OS No.120/2007 against the present appellant in the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna (henceforth for brevity referred to as “the trial Court”) for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,191/- with interest thereupon. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he had lent a sum of Rs.29,000/- to the defendant on 10.06.2004 for his legal necessities at Periyapatna, for which the defendant had executed an on demand promissory note and consideration receipt on the same day in favour of the plaintiff, by agreeing to repay the loan amount on demand along with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Despite several demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 12.05.2007. However, the defendant since failed to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit. 3. In response to the summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement denying all averments made in the plaint. He specifically contended that he had not at all borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and had not executed any promissory note or consideration receipt in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has availed loan of Rs.29,000/- from him on 10.6.2004, with interest of 2% p.m.? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount of Rs.34,191/- with future interest? 3. What order or Decree?” 5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 and P2 and also got marked the alleged scribe of Ex.P1 as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW1 and got examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3. 6. After hearing both sides and considering the material placed before it, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in negative and by its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW1 and got examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3. 6. After hearing both sides and considering the material placed before it, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in negative and by its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.47/2010 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna (henceforth for brevity referred to as “the First Appellate Court”). The defendant appeared before the Court and contested the matter. 8. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the appellant proves that he was successful in proving on demand promissory note and consideration receipt dated 10.06.2004? 2. Whether the interference by this court in the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 03.08.2010 is called for? 3. What order? 9. After hearing both side, the First Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 answering point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. 11. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of the Trial Court and granting a decree for money in favour of the respondent by re-appreciating the evidence in accordance with the established principles of law?” 12. In response to the notice, the respondent is being represented by his Counsel. 13. The lower court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. 14. Heard arguments of learned Counsel from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 15. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove the writing of the document, its execution and also passing of consideration, despite which the First Appellate Court was at error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove the writing of the document, its execution and also passing of consideration, despite which the First Appellate Court was at error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He also contended that the stamp paper at Ex.P1 was dated 07.06.2004 where as the alleged execution of the promissory note upon it, was on 10.06.2004. Thus, the question as to why the stamp paper was purchased early has remained un-answered. The same introduces doubt in the case of the plaintiff. 17. In view of the fact that the respondent has remained absent in the matter, no argument was addressed from the respondent side. 18. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1. In his affidavit evidence in the form of examination-in-chief, the plaintiff has reiterated the plaint averments stating that the defendant had executed an on demand promissory note and a consideration receipt while receiving the loan. The plaintiff got marked the said document at Exs.P1 and P1(a) respectively. He also got marked thumb mark of the defendant at Exs.P1 and P1(b) and the signature of the defendant therein at Ex.P1(c). He also got marked the thumb mark and signature of the defendant in Ex.P1(a), Ex.P1(d) and Ex.P1(e) respectively. He also got marked a copy of the legal notice said to have been issued by him to the defendant at Ex.P2. 19. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that prior to the loan under dispute, the defendant had not borrowed any amount from him. However, in the present transaction, the defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. He further stated that one Mr. Ravisha and one Mr. Jagadisha were the witnesses to the loan transaction which had taken place in the office of one Mr. V.N. Muralidharan, a document writer. He has also stated that the witnesses were brought by none else than the defendant himself. He further stated that the stamp paper to write an on demand promissory note was got written by the defendant. He has stated that he has withdrawn a sum of Rs.29,000/- from the Bank account, a week prior to the loan transaction and had kept the said amount in his house which he used for giving loan to the defendant. He further stated that the stamp paper to write an on demand promissory note was got written by the defendant. He has stated that he has withdrawn a sum of Rs.29,000/- from the Bank account, a week prior to the loan transaction and had kept the said amount in his house which he used for giving loan to the defendant. However, in his further cross examination, he has stated that no negotiation had taken place with respect to the payment of interest. Except eliciting some more details about alleged transaction, no material statement or admissions were brought in the cross examination of PW1 which can be considered as favourable to the defendant. 20. The plaintiff also got examined one Mr. V.N. Muralidharan said to be the document writer and scribe of Exs.P1 and P1(a) in his support. The said witness in his examination-in-chief supporting the case of the plaintiff has stated that the alleged transaction has taken place in his presence and he was the scribe in the document at Exs.P1 and P1(a). It was after going through the contents of the document the defendant executed the said document. The witness also identified the signature and thumb mark of the defendant in Exs.P1 and P1(a). Though this witness also was subjected to a detailed cross examination from the defendant side, no material could be elicited in his cross examination. 21. The defendant got himself examined as DW1, wherein he has stated that a quarrel had taken place between him and the plaintiff about three years back with respect to purchase of provisions from his shop. It is in that connection, the plaintiff has filed a false suit against him. In his cross examination, this witness denied his signature on the vakalath filed on his behalf from his counsel in the Trial Court, so also, his signature in Ex.P1. However, he admitted his signature in Ex.P1(a). He denied a suggestion that in order to avoid his liability towards the plaintiff, he is denying his signatures and thumb mark in Exs.P1 and P1(a). 22. The defendant also got examined one Mr. Ravisha and Mr. Jagadisha as DWs.2 and 3 from his side. Both these witnesses have stated that they know the plaintiff and that both of them have witnessed the loan transaction and have put their signatures as witnesses in Ex.P1. 22. The defendant also got examined one Mr. Ravisha and Mr. Jagadisha as DWs.2 and 3 from his side. Both these witnesses have stated that they know the plaintiff and that both of them have witnessed the loan transaction and have put their signatures as witnesses in Ex.P1. They have also stated that the negotiation and the loan transaction had taken place in the office of Mr. Muralidharan, a document writer of Periyapatna. Both these witnesses were treated as hostile and the defendant was permitted to cross examine these witnesses. Even in their cross examination, the defendant could not elicit any support in his favour by either of these witnesses. 23. The defendant as DW1 in his evidence stated that there was a dispute between himself and the plaintiff about three years prior to the alleged transaction and admitted that the plaintiff was not an unknown person to him. By stating that the said dispute was with respect to the purchase of provisions, the witnesses also admitted that there was some business transactions as a seller and a purchaser between them. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be considered as a stranger to the defendant. Secondly, the plaintiff as PW1 in his evidence has stated that for the alleged loan transaction, one Mr. Rajesha and Mr. Jagadisha were the witnesses and one Mr. V.N. Muralidharan, the document writer was the scribe of promissory note and consideration receipt. The said statement of the plaintiff has not been denied or disputed by the defendant. On the other hand all those three persons were examined either as the plaintiff witnesses or as the defendant witnesses. The two alleged witnesses to the alleged transaction i.e., Mr. Rajesha and Mr. Jagadisha, for the reasons best known to the defendant were brought as witnesses from the defendant side. When the burden of proving the loan transaction was upon the plaintiff, it was not required to the defendant to produce DW2 and DW3 and to examine them. However, the defendant made such an exercise which went against him, since both those witnesses turned hostile to the defendant by supporting the case of the plaintiff. DWs.2 and 3 both categorically stated that the loan transaction negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant had taken place in their presence in the office of one Mr. V.N. Muralidharan, a document writer (PW2). DWs.2 and 3 both categorically stated that the loan transaction negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant had taken place in their presence in the office of one Mr. V.N. Muralidharan, a document writer (PW2). Even after treating both these witnesses as hostile, at the request of the defendant and permitting the defendant to cross examine both these witnesses, the defendant could not elicit any favourable statement from either of them. On the other hand in their detailed cross examination from the defendant side both these witnesses have further given some more details about the loan transaction by categorically stating that the loan amount was also handed over in their presence to the defendant through the scribe i.e., PW2. The said PW2 - Mr. V.N. Muralidharan counted the money and then gave it to the defendant. These witnesses also gave the details of how and when the stamp papers purchased. Thus, by summoning and examining DWs.2 and 3, the defendant invited risk upon himself and has strengthened the case of the plaintiff rather than weakening the plaintiff’s case. 24. The evidence of PW2 has also come with consistency and is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and DWs.2 and 3. The evidence of PW2 that loan transaction had taken place in his office and DWs.2 and 3 were the witnesses to the loan transaction and that the defendant had availed loan from the plaintiff and in which regard he has also executed an on demand promissory note and a consideration receipt on Exs.P1 and P1(a) have all corroborated by evidence of DWs., 2 and 3. Thus, the evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 corroborated by the evidence of PW2 - the scribe and also by the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 who are the witnesses to the loan transaction go to prove that the defendant had availed a loan of Rs.29,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.06.2004 and had executed a promissory note and a consideration receipt as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a) in that regard. 25. Merely because the stamp paper at Ex.P1 upon which the promissory note has been written is shown to have been purchased three days prior to the loan transaction. That itself neither invalidates the promissory note written upon it nor introduces any suspicion in the alleged loan transaction. 25. Merely because the stamp paper at Ex.P1 upon which the promissory note has been written is shown to have been purchased three days prior to the loan transaction. That itself neither invalidates the promissory note written upon it nor introduces any suspicion in the alleged loan transaction. There is no mandate that a documentation on a stamp paper is required to be made on the very same day when the said stamp paper is said to have been purchased. All these aspects have been analyzed by the First Appellate Court while reversing the finding of the Trial Court. On the other hand the Trial Court was carried away by couple of stray statements that has come out in the evidence of PW1 and DW2 to the effect that there was no specific negotiation about the rate of interest and that discrepancy regarding the presence of DWs.2 and 3 when the defendant was said to have purchased the stamp paper. By such mere stray statements the trial Court was carried away and ended in disbelieving the cogent evidence of PW2 and none else than the DWs.2 and 3 who have supported the case of the plaintiff. The said error committed by the trial Court in appreciation of the evidence has been rightly pointed out by the First Appellate Court which has rightly reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, by finding the rate of interest payable by the defendant to the plaintiff only at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount by the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court since is justifiable, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in the affirmative. 26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The regular second appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, Sitting at Periyapatna in RA No.47/2010 is confirmed.