IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1112 OF 2010 Between : Mohd. Shakir and others. ... PETITIONERS A N D Mohd.Nazeer Ali and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVLI REVISION PETITION NO.1112 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Act, is directed against judgment and decree in Small Cause Suit No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, whereunder and whereby the Small Cause Suit No.26 of 2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. 2. The plaintiff filed Small Cause Suit No.26 of 2007 against the defendant for recovery of a sum Rs.6,875/- stating that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5000/- from him and he executed a promissory note in his favour on 04.11.2004 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12 ½% per annum, but failed to pay the same. But the defendant contended that he never executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and he never borrowed any amount from him and the suit promissory note is fabricated and forged by the plaintiff with an intention to harass him. 3. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff that the promissory note was executed by the defendant and rejected the plea of forgery as the same has not been substantiated with any other evidence and accordingly decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Act are truncated. If the findings of the Court below are not based upon admissible evidence; and there is any miscarriage of justice caused and any perverse findings are given by the Court below, then interference is called for. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this revision is that the petitioner has not executed the promissory note and it is a forged one and hence, he is not liable to pay the amount covered under Ex.A.1. In view of the said plea, the initial burden lies on the respondent to establish that the petitioner executed the promissory note after receipt of consideration. Once the burden on the respondent is discharged, the presumption under Section 118-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, can be drawn. If it is drawn, the presumption is that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.5000/- from the respondent and executed the promissory note. Of course it is a rebuttable presumption. 6. When P.W.1 testified about execution of promissory note after receipt of consideration, a specific suggestion was given that the petitioner did not borrow the amount. When it comes to the evidence of PW.2 who is the attestor of the promissory note, he has categorically stated that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- and executed the promissory note and signed on the promissory note and thereafter he attested the document. This part of the statement of P.W.2 remained unchallenged. Once the fact has been stated by the witnesses and the same is not denied or disputed in the cross examination, it can safely be held that such a fact is admitted. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 remained unchallenged. 7. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 would clearly go to show that petitioner executed Ex.A-1 promissory note after receipt of consideration. In view of the fact that the petitioner has taken a plea that he has not signed on ExA.1 and his signature was forged, the burden is on him to establish the same. No doubt, the petitioner has stated that the signature on the promissory note does not belong to him, but, at the same time, there must be some enmity existing between PW.1 and D.W.1 so as to create Ex.A.1. There is no such enmity in between them elicited. DW.1 has not stated the reason or cause as to why the respondent has forged the signature of the petitioner by creating Ex.A.1. 8. D.W.2 is the scribe of the promissory note. He stated that he has written the promissory note in the absence of the petitioner and attestors. In the cross examination, he admitted that Ex.A.1 would reveal the person, who borrowed the amount and executed promissory note, undertakes to repay the amount with interest. He also admitted that he used to subscribe his signature in the promissory note after executant subscribes his signature. A perusal of Ex.A1, shows the signature of D.W.1 can be seen in the first instance and thereafter the signature of D.W.2 was found. He also admitted that Jasthi Kotaiah, subscribed his signature across the revenue stamp in ExA.1 promissory note with the same pen, with which he scribed ExA.1. So admission of D.W.2 would clearly go to show that it is the petitioner, who signed on Ex.A.1 promissory note. Therefore, to get over the liability to pay the amount, a plea of forgery has been taken and the same has not been substantiated with any other evidence. The petitioner has not made a request to send the disputed signatures to expert for comparison with the admitted signatures. If the evidence of PW.2 and DW.2 is taken into consideration, it is clear that it is the petitioner, who executed the promissory note and signed after receiving the consideration. Therefore, the trial Court rightly placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and decreed the suit. The finings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY, 28 2011. YVL