THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.571 of 2000 O R D E R: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the decree and judgment in S.C.No.1 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam dated 02.12.1999. The suit was for recovery of Rs.8,600/- from the revision petitioner herein on the basis of a promissory note dated 20.01.1994 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- executed in favour of the respondent herein agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The respondent herein claimed that the revision petitioner did not discharge the debt in spite of demands and a notice and hence the suit. The revision petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note in the written statement and the only point for consideration before the trial Court was whether the promissory note is true and enforceable. The trial Court examined PWs 1 and 2 and D.W.1 during the trial and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. In the impugned judgment, the trial Court observed that the evidence of the respondent herein as PW.1 was corroborated by PW.2 as attestor of the pronote and the revision petitioner herein in spite of receiving the notice under Ex.A.2 did not even give a reply. The conduct of the revision petitioner herein and the positive evidence of PWs 1 and 2 led the trial Court to conclude that Ex.A.1 pronote was executed by the revision petitioner and consequently a decree was passed as prayed for. The revision petitioner challenged the said judgment in this revision contending that the non-examination of the Handwriting Expert to whom the suit pronote was sent by the plaintiff through the Court should have led to an inference that though the opinion of the Expert was in favour of the plaintiff, the Expert was not examined, as his cross-examination would have proved the falsity of his opinion and the forgery of Ex.A.1. Arguments of the learned counsel for both parties are heard. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment suffers from any factual or legal infirmity. The evidence of respondent herein as PW.1 and the revision petitioner herein as D.W.1 before the trial Court is necessarily to be treated as interested evidence and it is a rule of prudence that the Court has to look for satisfactory corroboration from independent material. The evidence of PW.2, attestor of Ex.A.1, provided such support to the claims of PW.1 and the absence of any reply to Ex.A.2 suit notice from PW.1 to D.W.1 was also considered as a circumstance probablising the truth of the suit claim, which cannot be considered to be unreasonable or perverse. Even the Handwriting Expert to whom the pronote was sent for expert opinion by the plaintiff through the Court, positively opined in favour of the plaintiff about the genuineness of the pronote. Even according to the grounds of revision, how the non-examination of the expert with his opinion in favour of the plaintiff would be fatal to the plaintiff’s case is unintelligible and incomprehensible. The possible probablisation of the falsity of expert opinion by the cross- examination is a too remote possibility to deviate from the findings of the trial Court and therefore the judgment in question cannot be interfered with in the restricted revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 22nd July, 2010. PNV