THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.2042 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, IX of 1887 against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in Small Cause Suit No.17 of 2008. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,186/- allegedly due from the respondent/defendant based on Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 20.03.2005. The respondent/defendant in his written statement denied the entire suit transaction. Both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence. On appreciation of the said evidence, the Court below while recording a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note and particularly passing of consideration under the said document, dismissed the suit with costs. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently contended that the Judgment under Revision is illegal and erroneous since the Court below had failed to see that the burden lies on the respondent/defendant to prove that the signature on Ex.A.1 was forged. In support of the said contention he relied upon a decision of this Court in Ponugupati Subba Rao v. Sikhakollu Pulla Rao[1] This is a case where the defendant had denied the entire suit transaction contending inter alia that the plaintiff, who was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the defendant, must have colluded with his close associates and fabricated the suit promissory note. In the circumstances, the burden of proof was rightly placed upon the plaintiff to establish the execution of such promissory note. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Since, the judgment under revision does not suffer from any legal error, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 03-08-2009 KLP [1] 1999(3) ALD 446.