records. Further, if the said documents are concocted, defendant No.1 has not initiated any criminal action against the plaintiff. On the contrary, defendant No.1 had kept quite. Only when the plaintiff got issued legal notice, defendant No.1 had replied to the said notice denying the loan transaction. Except denying the loan transaction, defendant No.1 had not placed any records to establish that the plaintiff had played fraud on defendant No.1. Further, defendant No.2 being co-obligant has not filed any written statement contending that the plaintiff, by playing fraud on the defendants, concocted the documents. Defendant No.2 had also not entered into the witness box. The plaintiff had produced Ex.P10 which discloses that plaintiff has submitted Form No.6 from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 has produced Ex.D1 which is the communication issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the defendants stating that the plaintiff has not submitted Form No.6. Further, in order to prove Ex.D1, defendant No.1 has not examined the author of Ex.D1.
