THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6344 OF 2005 DATED: 18-03-2011 Between: Vudalapati Gurunatha Reddy. .... PETITIONER And Yandapalle Munaswamy. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 25.08.2005, in Small Cause Suit No.35 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, wherein the said suit filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.8600/- due under the promissory note, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit pleading that on 06.06.2001 respondent-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- and executed a promissory note promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% and in spite of demands respondent did not discharge the debt. Respondent-defendant filed written statement contending that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the promissory note and there was no demand on him at any time for payment of the amount and due to village factions the suit promissory note was brought into existence by forgery and fabrication. 4. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the defendant. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the truth of execution of the suit promissory note and the alleged borrowal thereunder. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. As seen from the impugned judgment, the evidence of the plaintiff was so incoherent and inconsistent regarding the alleged execution and attestation of the suit promissory note, that he did not inspire the confidence of the trial Court to believe his version. According to P.W.1, the suit promissory note- Ex.A1 was scribed by one Narayanareddy, whereas the document shows that it was scribed by one Ramachary, who is examined as P.W.4. The said Narayanareddy is stated to have attested Ex.A1. When a question was suggested to P.W.1, he denied the same and asserted that it was scribed by Narayanareddy only. The testimony of P.W.1 is found to be inconsistent with that of P.Ws.2 to 4, scribe and attestors. 7. P.W.2-the second attestor admitted in the cross examination that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and he further stated that no consideration was passed in his presence. According to him, he was informed by the defendant that he received the amount. He does not also know the contents of Ex.A1. P.W.3-the other attestor deposed that the plaintiff sent the defendant to his house and the promissory note was written at his house. His evidence shows that the plaintiff was not present at the time of scribing the promissory note and it was scribed by P.W.4 at the request of P.W.3. P.W.4 however gives a different version by deposing that at the request of the defendant he scribed Ex.A1 at his house. P.W.4 is the resident of Kaspapet, whereas the defendant is the resident of Nadimpalli. Thus, the evidence of the plaintiff, the scribe and the attestors is mutually inconsistent and contradictory to each other as to where; when; at whose instance and under what circumstances the suit promissory note came to be executed. When the defendant has raised the plea that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated, the burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to establish by clear and cogent evidence that the suit promissory note was in fact executed by the defendant and that the defendant received a consideration of Rs.5000/- thereunder. Plaintiff, no doubt, examined the scribe and the attestors but their evidence does not support the version of the plaintiff and in fact, plaintiff’s version is also inconsistent with the contents of Ex.A1. According to the plaintiff, he got issued a registered notice prior to filing of the suit, but no such notice is filed to show that any demand is made by the plaintiff, prior to filing of the suit. 8. The trial Court has on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish by clear and cogent evidence that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant and that the defendant has received a consideration of Rs.5000/- thereunder. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th March, 2011. Tsy