handicrafts business and his signature had been obtained by the plaintiff, when he was in an inebriated condition at a party and no consideration was paid to the defendant under the said document. Therefore, according to the defendant, claiming the return of the said document, he had issued a legal notice to the plaintiff marked as Ex.A2, dated 14.09.2004. Responding to the same, it appears that the plaintiff has issued a reply notice dated 21.09.2004 marked as Ex.A3. Following the same, it could be seen that alleging that the defendant had threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, a police compliant had been preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant, which could be evidenced from the documents marked as Exs.A7 & 8, being the compliant copy and CSR receipt issued by the police respectively. Thereafter, it also appears that the defendant had sent a legal notice to the police that he had been illegally detained by the police for no fault, as could be seen from the notice dated 15.01.2004 marked as Ex.A9. After all these happenings, it appears that the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff. Therefore, it could be seen that as rightly found by the courts below, there had been a serious enmity between the parties concerned and therefore, it has to be carefully seen whether the defendant had actually borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under the so called promissory note marked as Ex.A1.
