JUDGMENT : M.M. SUNDRESH, J. Prayer: Appeal preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.12.2016 made in C.S. No. 11 of 2009. 1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Single Judge in decreeing the suit in part with specific reference to Ex.P4, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The suit has been laid for recovery of money and permanent injunction. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellant borrowed money from the respondent for the purpose of producing the film. Accordingly, Ex.P1 was executed on 27.01.2004. The terms of the agreement between the parties are to the effect that amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- will have to be returned within the specific time by the appellant along with interest mentioned therein and the movie shall not be released till such compliance. 3. Ex.P2 is the Letter of Confirmation by the appellant to the respondent and as per this document, the appellant is stated to have agreed to pay a total amount of Rs. 17,50,000/-. Since he could not comply with the agreed terms, the appellant is stated to have executed Ex.P3 to P5, which are promissory notes and letter of confirmation. 4. It is the further case of the respondent that the subsequent promissory note under Ex.P4 was meant for the subsequent movie proposed to be produced by the appellant. Under Ex.P7, legal notice was issued and on refusal of the appellant to make the payment, the suit has been laid before the Court. 5. The respondent/plaintiff examined two witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 is the respondent himself and PW-2 is the attestor of Exs.P3 and P4. The respondent marked 10 documents under Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant while examining himself as DW-1, has marked 24 documents under Exs.D1 to D24. The learned Single Judge framed the following issues: “1. Whether the promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 20.02.2006 for a sum of Rs. 17.50 lakhs is true, genuine and supported by consideration? 2. Whether the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs to the defendant for the production of the feature film ENGAL ASAAN on the promise to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum before the release of the said film? 3. 17.50 lakhs is true, genuine and supported by consideration? 2. Whether the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs to the defendant for the production of the feature film ENGAL ASAAN on the promise to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum before the release of the said film? 3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 49,98,500/- towards the principal and interest till the date of filing of the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on Rs. 30,50,000/- from the date of the plaint till realisation? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants or persons acting on his behalf from releasing the picture ENGAL ASAAN without settling the suit claim? 7. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?” 6. It is to be noted, the respondent did not complete the process of examination by subjecting himself as PW-1 along with PW-2 to cross examination. The witnesses have been examined in part during cross examination. It is for the reason, both the witnesses have been fastened with detention order. However the appellant has been cross examined. 7. The case of the respondent is that the appellant received money for the release of two movies, for the first movie, he executed Exs.P1 to P3 and for the other Ex.P4. For first movie, the appellant did not repay the money and thereafter executed Ex.P3, dated 20.02.2006 within six months. Thereafter, Ex.P4 has been executed on 21.08.2006 for the subsequent movie produced in the year 2008. The learned Single Judge while holding that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be taken note of, nonetheless, decreed the suit in so far as the amount mentioned under Ex.P4 along with 24% interest. Thus, the subject matter of Ex.P3 with respect to payment of money has been found in favour of the appellant. This was done by placing reliance upon the document marked by the appellant with respect to the discharge. These two documents have been produced through M/s. Gemini Colour Lab. This entity acts like garnishee. Accordingly, letter dated 12.01.2009 has been issued by M/s. Gemini Colour Lab indicating the discharge for the amount covered under Ex.P1. This was done by placing reliance upon the document marked by the appellant with respect to the discharge. These two documents have been produced through M/s. Gemini Colour Lab. This entity acts like garnishee. Accordingly, letter dated 12.01.2009 has been issued by M/s. Gemini Colour Lab indicating the discharge for the amount covered under Ex.P1. Similarly, letter dated 13.11.2004 being the one returned by the respondent to M/s. Gemini Colour Lab also states that the amount due for the production of the movie named “Meesai Madhavan” has been accordingly repaid by the appellant in favour of the respondent. 8. The learned Single Judge, however, proceeded to hold that the liability under Ex.P4 is still in existence. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant having admitted the signature, is bound to satisfy the Court and in the absence of any other material, the appellant cannot wriggle out of his liability. 9. Challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been preferred. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent has suppressed the factum of discharge. He was also retaining the cheques signed by the appellant in blank papers. As seen in para-4 of the plaint, there was no subsequent agreement after Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is a fabricated one. Similarly, for the demand made under Ex.P4, there was no agreement. Even in legal notice issued under Ex.P7, facts have been suppressed. If Ex.P2 is true, the document dated 13.11.2004, by which, the respondent acknowledged the discharge could not have been correct. The learned Single Judge having accepted the document dated 13.11.2004 marked by the appellant, ought to have dismissed the suit in its entirety. If the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be relied upon for the first loan claimed, the same also cannot be looked into by the second loan. The appellant has discharged his initial burden. Movie was produced in the year 2008. Thereafter, there was no occasion to borrow the loan. The name of the proprietorship has also been changed and the conduct and character of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal will have to be allowed and therefore, suit will have to be dismissed. 11. Thereafter, there was no occasion to borrow the loan. The name of the proprietorship has also been changed and the conduct and character of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal will have to be allowed and therefore, suit will have to be dismissed. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent made the following submissions:- The appellant has not discharged the initial burden as the suit has been filed based upon the promissory notes. Though the learned Single Judge declined part of the claim, the same will not invalidate the second claim. There is nothing wrong in taking into consideration of the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2. It is not, as if, the evidence has been closed with the Chief Examination. PW-1 and PW-2 were put into cross examination. They could not appear as detention orders were passed and thus, they were under incarceration. No attempt has been made by the defendant/appellant to get his document back. In support of his contention, the learned counsel made reliance on the following decisions: (i) Maharaja of Kolhapur vs. S. Sundarm Ayyar and Others, MANU/TN/0487/1924 (ii) Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and Others, MANU/SC/2555/2008 (iii) Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payrelal, MANU/SC/0123/1999 12. From the facts narrated, we could gather that the claim made by the respondent for the loan granted on two occasions has been allowed in part. It is the specific case of the respondent that there was no discharge at all. The learned Single Judge disagreed with the case of the respondent/plaintiff insofar as discharge is concerned. Accordingly, documents relied upon by the appellant to substantiate discharge have been found favour with the learned Single Judge. It is the case of the appellant that the blank papers with signature given at the earlier point of time are used for the subsequent creation of the documents Exs.P3 and P4. The fact that Ex.P3 was not approved by the learned Single Judge would sufficient enough to hold that the burden fixed on the appellant has been discharged. Once that happens, then the burden reverts back on the plaintiff. We may note, the plaintiff could not complete his evidence through PW-1 and PW-2. As noted, PW-2 is the attestor of both documents. Once that happens, then the burden reverts back on the plaintiff. We may note, the plaintiff could not complete his evidence through PW-1 and PW-2. As noted, PW-2 is the attestor of both documents. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge did not accept PW-1 and PW-2 so far as the part of the claim is concerned. 13. Much reliance has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. We have no difficulty in agreeing with the submission made by the learned counsel on the admissibility of the evidence subject to the compliance of Section 33 of the Act, which we hold so as both PW-1 and PW-2 were not available due to the detention order passed against them. An evidence adduced can be looked into. However, such evidence would be a very week one. The Court will have to take extra care in placing reliance on the said evidence unless it is adequately supported by other evidence. We are not here to say anything on the reputation of the respondent, who has deposed as PW-1 or PW-2. This is a matter to be looked into by the learned Single Judge. 14. As stated, the learned Single Judge did agree with the case of discharge on the same set of evidence adduced. Therefore while we agree on the law laid down in the judgments produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, we deem it fit to remit this matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. Though it is well open to us to undertake the said process by ourselves, we refrain from doing so, as evidence in yet to get completed in view of our decisions. We make it clear that remittance is only in so far as the issues in the appeal are concerned. Thus, we make it clear that we are not inclined to go into the dismissal of the suit against the respondent, particularly, when no appeal has been filed against it. 15. At this point of time, it is brought to the notice that in view of the decision made by the High Court to increase the pecuniary value of the City Civil Court from 01.01.2019 onwards, the jurisdiction would lie before the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 15. At this point of time, it is brought to the notice that in view of the decision made by the High Court to increase the pecuniary value of the City Civil Court from 01.01.2019 onwards, the jurisdiction would lie before the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Therefore, the above suit shall be transferred to the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court who is also heading the Commercial Court, aforesaid, within three months after the completion of the evidence. 16. In such view of the matter, we set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge giving liberty to the respondent to complete his evidence. Thereafter, Cross examination has to be completed by the appellant. The aforesaid exercise will have to be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to dispose of the suit within three months thereafter. 17. Accordingly, original side appeal stands allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.