HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1242 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S. No.5 of 2002 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,800/- on the basis of a promissory note, dated 01-01-1999, said to have been executed by the appellant. It was pleaded that initially, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- promising to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum and inspite of repeated demands, he did not repay the amount. The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He pleaded that he neither borrowed the amount nor executed the promissory note. It is also alleged that he promissory note was forged by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 20-04-2009. The respondent filed A.S. No.9 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 09-03-2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. 2. Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the respondent failed to prove the promissory note marked as Ex.A-1 and hardly any witnesses were examined to prove it. He further submits that the efforts made to get Ex.A-1 examined through handwriting expert did not fructify for want of writing of similar nature and in that view of the matter, the trial Court itself has undertaken comparison of signatures on Ex.A-1 on the one hand and on Exs.B-1 to B-12, pay slips of the appellant, on the other hand. He submits that the lower appellate Court was not at all justified in placing burden to disprove Ex.A-1 upon the appellant, contrary to law. 3. Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that trial Court committed serious error in undertaking the comparison of signatures on disputed documents by itself though it has expressed serious doubt about the veracity of the same. He submits that the appellant had deliberately changed the pattern of his signature in Exs.B-1 to B-12 with a view to create a ground to dispute the execution of Ex.A-1. 4. The suit was filed for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note. The appellant denied the plaint allegations. The trial Court framed the following issues: “1) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.15,000/- on 01-01-1999 from the plaintiff and executed the suit pronote? 2) Whether the cause of action shown by the plaintiff is true and correct? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit debt from the defendant?” 5. In addition to his deposition as PW-1, the respondent examined PWs.2 and 3. The evidence of those two witnesses was eschewed from consideration, since they did not turn up for cross- examination. The documentary evidence comprised of Ex.A-1 promissory note and Ex.A-2 legal notice. The appellant, on the other hand, deposed as D.W-1 and he filed his pay slips as Exs.B-1 to B-12. 6. The trial Court ought to have required the respondent to prove the document and in case he failed to prove it, left the matter be that. However, it has chosen to undertake extensive comparison of signatures on Ex.A-1 on the one hand and Exs.B-1 to B-12 on the other. The discrepancy was only about the form of signature. On Ex.A-1 the signature of the appellant in full name as D. Hanuma Naik was written with staff number, whereas on Exs.B-1 to B-12 the signature as D.H. Naik was written. The trial Court took this as serious discrepancy and dismissed the suit. 7. The lower appellate Court, on the other hand, framed the following points for its consideration: “i. Whether the suit promissory note is not a forged one and that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree? ii. Whether the finding of the trial Court requires any interference?” 8. The very framing of the first point is defective. It proceeds as though, prima facie the promissory note is forged and burden is upon the appellant to prove that it is not forged. Such an approach is contrary to law. Emphasis should be to verify whether Ex.A-1 is proved or not. Since both the Courts committed error, the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial Court. 9. Hence, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgments rendered by the trial Court and lower appellate Court are set aside. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. If the court feels that it is necessary to undertake any comparison, or if an application filed by the parties, the Court shall send the same to the finger print expert, for comparison of the signatures on Ex.A-1 on the one hand and on Exs.B-1 to B-12 on the other hand. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 12, 2011. KTL