the first appellate court has merely gone by the fact that the defendant had admitted the signature in Ext.A1-promissory note, but had overlooked the fact that even P.W.2, the attesting witness to Ext.A1, has deposed that the said document that he had signed was only a blank paper. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff, D.W.2 and two others had executed a consent deed to run a chit business, and that a signed blank paper given by the defendant was used to fabricate the promissory note to enforce the liability. He further argued that P.W.1 even denied that he had ever run a chit business and pretended that he did not know D.W.2. Indeed, he would even deny Ext.B4 and Ext.B5, two of the documents, which relate to the inter se dispute between the partners. But, if the signatures of the plaintiff in Ext.B4 and Ext.B5 are compared with the signature in the plaint, they reconcile. He proceeded to argue that the defendant had preferred Ext.B3, complaint before the police complaining about the plaintiff not returning the blank paper given by her, and during enquiry into that complaint by the police, the plaintiff had given a signed statement (Ext.B8), but in his testimony he even denied the signature in this.
