THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.119 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.364 of 2004 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur against the petitioner for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note, dated 18.10.2001. It was pleaded that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- by executing the promissory note and that he did not pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. The petitioner pleaded that he did not execute the promissory note at all. According to him, it was forged and not enforceable in law. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 03.04.2008. The petitioner filed A.S.No.226 of 2009 in the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. The appeal was dismissed on 07.04.2010. Since the value of the suit is below Rs.25,000/-, revision is filed instead of second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Before the trial Court, the respondent deposed as P.W.1 and he examined P.Ws.2 and 3, the scribe and witness of the promissory note, marked as Ex.A1. The petitioner deposed as D.W.1 and he did not adduce any other evidence. The principal contention urged by the petitioner was that the writing and the signature on the promissory note are in different inks. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court took note of this and found that while the body of the promissory note was written with one ink, the signatures of the executant, scribe and witness are in different inks. There is nothing unnatural about this. It is not necessary that the signatories to the document must sign with the same pen or with the same ink. A feeble attempt is made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that he is a small farmer. This plea was not raised in the written statement and even otherwise, he is a pensioner. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:13.12.2011 kdl