IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH (17TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3566 of 2005 Between: Talluri Bhagyam … Petitioner/Plaintiff And: Vanukuri Vijayalakshmi … Respondent/defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3566 of 2005 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2004 in SC No.16 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, wherein the said suit filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.6408/-, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant who is her neighbour, borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.04.2001 for family expenses and executed pronote Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the debt with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of demands, the defendant did not discharge the debt. The respondent/defendant filed written statement, contending that the suit pronote is rank forgery. According to her, due to the disputes in connection with Dwakra group matters between herself and the plaintiff, suit pronote was fabricated by the plaintiff. 4. During trial, plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the attestors are examined as PWs.2 and 3. Ex.A.1 pronote was marked on plaintiff’s side. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. The trial court, by impugned judgment dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff has not established the claim. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows total lack of application of mind apart from language and reasoning adopted being incoherent and unintelligible. The following paragraph extracted from the judgment of the trial Court would demonstrate the same. “The date of plaint is visibly corrected. Even through correction it is clearly visible that the plaint was prepared on 21.04.2003. It is corrected as 15.7.2003. It is filed on 18.7.2003 and registered on the same date. Probability of forging of Ex.A.1 is thus proved.” 6. Even according to the defendant, she is the leader of Dwakra group. The inference of the trial Court that the defendant is illiterate and might not have scribed the pronote is unwarranted in the light of the evidence of PW.1-plaintiff and also the attestors PWs.2 and 3. The trial court does not record any finding to the effect that the signature of the defendant on the suit pronote is forged and fabricated and on the other hand, the trial Court appears to have come to the conclusion that the signature of the executant is genuine and the writing on the pronote is not that of the defendant. Once the signature on the pronote is found to be that of the defendant, the question of drawing any inference that the same is fabricated or forged does not arise. It is for the defendant to explain under what circumstances, the pronote came to be executed. The fact that the plaintiff has not chosen to send the suit document to the expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, does not come in way of upholding the claim of the plaintiff, if other evidence available on record is sufficient, especially when the amount involved is low. PWs.2 and 3 attestors of Ex.A.1 have testified in corroboration of PW.1 regarding execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant and passage of consideration. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve their testimony. The evidence on record clearly establishes the execution of the suit pronote by the defendant and also passage of consideration thereon. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, which is based on surmises and unwarranted inferences is wholly unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and consequently, the suit is decreed with costs throughout and subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of realization. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.02.2011 bss