THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4912 of 2005 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.180 of 2002 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,700/- on the strength of a promissory note dated 11.07.1999. It was pleaded that the petitioner borrowed that amount agreeing to pay with interest at 24% p.a., and despite demands and notices, he has not repaid the same. The petitioner filed written statement opposing the suit. He did not deny the execution of promissory note, but stated that the amount covered by the promissory note was discharged. Through its judgment, dated 4.03.2003, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent filed A.S.No.3 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. The appeal was allowed on 10.06.2005. Hence this revision petition. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court, taking the discrepancies in the averments made in the plaint on the one hand and in the evidence adduced by the respondent on the other hand, dismissed the suit but, the lower appellate Court misread the evidence. Learned counsel submits that even as regards the interest, the facts and figures mentioned in the promissory note under Ex.A.1 disclose that it was 36% whereas in the plaint it was claimed at 24%. Other submissions are also made. Sri J. Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that once the petitioner admitted the execution of promissory note, burden is upon him to prove non-receipt of consideration and the respondent miserably failed in this regard. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the suit pronote is forged one or not? 2. Whether the suit pronote is not supported by consideration? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to money decree for Rs.18,220/- against the defendant? 4. To what relief? To prove his case, the respondent examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. The petitioner, having deposed as DW.1, did not adduce any documentary evidence. The suit filed by the respondent was based upon a promissory note marked as Ex.A.1. The petitioner did not dispute the execution thereof. However, his defence was that he did not receive the consideration. Once he admitted the execution thereof, the initial burden was upon the petitioner to dispute the contents of Ex.A.1. In this regard there was hardly any evidence forthcoming to disprove Ex.A.1. Whether as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act or the general principles of evidence, once the execution of promissory note is admitted, the presumption needs to be drawn to the effect that the amount mentioned therein is borrowed. The trial Court relied upon a sentence, which is extracted in isolation. In the cross-examination, the respondent explained that the petitioner approached him to lend a sum of Rs.15,000/- and as against that he paid only Rs.10,700/-. In the next sentence he pleaded to the effect that he did not pay the amount on the date of the promissory note. This was construed as though the amount was not paid at all, without realizing that a mention was made to payment of amount, earlier thereto. The discrepancies as to the amount or the interest virtually become insignificant, once the petitioner did not dispute the execution of promissory note. The lower appellate Court has examined the matter from correct perspective. To be reasonable, the lower appellate Court awarded interest at 6% p.a. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the decree passed in the appeal. Hence the Civil revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted the facility of payment of decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.5000/- payable on or before 10th of every month commencing from October 2009. If the petitioner commits default in payment of two consecutive instalments, it shall be open to the respondent to file E.P. and shall take further steps. As and when the amount is deposited, the first respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 9th September, 2009 Note: C.C. in 3 days. (B/o) Js.