1 Civil Revision No.12/2011 11.11.2011 Shri A.S. Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Milind Phadke, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. This revision application has been filed by the defendant against the judgment & decree dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, district Shajapur in First Appeal No.2-B/2010, whereby the learned lower appellate Court reversed the judgment & decree of the trial Court dated 1.4.2010, passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Shujalpur in Civil Suit No.43-B/09 and decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff by holding that the defendant/petitioner, who had taken the plea of promissory note (Ex.P/1) was forged and fabricated document and there is manipulation in the document has failed to prove in his evidence and affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no promissory note was executed by the petitioner nor he signed the promissory note and the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove due execution of the promissory note and the learned lower appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and reversing the well considered finding recorded by the trial Court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant in his evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has not stated that there is manipulation in Ex.P/1 and year has been changed from 2002 to 2005. As per promissory note (Ex. P/1) the same has been written by Babulal and not by the plaintiff-defendant and this question has been considered by the lower appellate Court in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment. 2 On perusal of the material available on record this Court is of the view that the burden lies on the petitioner-defendant to prove the manipulation and the fact that Ex.P/1 is forged and fabricated document, which has not been proved by him. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the lower appellate Court has not committed any legal error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff nor acted illegally with material irregularity in dismissing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. For the above mentioned reasons, this revision petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*