- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24030 RSA No. 619 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.619 OF 2024 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE M.S.MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.385, GANESH BHANDAR ROAD, NEAR SADHANA CLINIC, JANATHA NAGAR, MYSURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.C.RAJENDRAN, S/O K.R. CHALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.2151, 15TH BLOCK, JANAPIRYA TOWNSHIP, KADABAGERE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 030. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ASHA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASAN V., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.72/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.810/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL 1ST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24030 RSA No. 619 of 2024 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The suit is filed for the recovery of money based on the pronote. The appellant/defendant did not dispute the signature on the pronote and also the cheques, which have been considered by the Trial Court. But defence was taken by the appellant that he has issued the pronote only in order to help the plaintiff to get the loan from third party as they were friends. The said defence was taken note of by the Trial Court and appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Both the Courts have taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination that even before filing the suit, notice was issued and also he admits the signature in Ex.P.1 and also admits the signature in Exs.P.6 to 8 cheques and also handwritings available on the said documents and the same has been discussed by the Trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24030 RSA No. 619 of 2024 Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, in paragraph No.28 extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 and also discussed in detail regarding the very defence of the creation of document of Ex.P.1. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the contents of Exs.P.6 to 8 and Ex.P.1. When there was an admission on the part of D.W.1, presumption was drawn in favour of the plaintiff invoking Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short). In paragraph No.32, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it does not require interference and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that there is a discrepancy in the pronote. The learned counsel contend that in the absence of the defendant’s signature after the recital of the pronote contents, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the same and when there are - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24030 RSA No. 619 of 2024 inconsistencies regarding legal necessities for borrowing the amount in terms of Ex.P.1, ought not to have decreed the suit. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the case of the plaintiff and except production of document of Ex.P.1, nothing is relied upon and also with regard to capacity to lend the money. Both the Courts failed to take note of the defence which has been raised that only with an intention to help the plaintiff, the document Ex.P.1 was given. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that both the Courts have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and when there is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 that he used to avail the loan from the plaintiff frequently and admitted the documents Ex.P.1 and Exs.P.6 to 8, the question of admitting the appeal and framing substantial question of law does not arise. Both the Courts have given a fact finding on both the question of law and question of fact. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and considering - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24030 RSA No. 619 of 2024 the material available on record, the suit is filed based on the pronote dated 04.12.2012, wherein specific averment is made that the defendant had availed the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 18%. The plaintiff also relied upon the document of Ex.P.1 and identified the signature of the defendant as Ex.P.1(a) and the signature is not disputed. The notice was issued and no reply was given. The cheques Exs.P.6 to 8 were marked and except the defence, nothing is proved by placing on record any cogent evidence to substantiate the defence of the appellant. When such being the case, both the Courts relied upon both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, especially the admission on the part of D.W.1, which has been extracted. The First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the same, extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 in paragraph No.28 and detailed discussion was made in paragraph No.31 and presumption was also invoked. In paragraph No.32, both the factual aspect as well as question of law was taken note of by invoking Section 118 of the NI Act. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in granting the relief in favour of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24030 RSA No. 619 of 2024 plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- before this Court. Hence, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the respondent, on proper identification. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53