THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.4519 OF 1999 Dated. 13-12-2010 Between: K.N.R.Singh …petitioner Vs. V.Basava Sankara Rao ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.4519 OF 1999 ORAL ORDER The defendant in Small Cause Suit No.63 of 1995 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala is the revision petitioner herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.8592/- being the principal of Rs.5,000/- and interest thereon borrowed by the defendant from the transferor of the plaintiff by name Vaka Jayalakshmi on 06-09-1992 and the same is said to have been transferred in favour of the plaintiff on 15-10-1994 for consideration. In spite of demand, the defendant did not pay the money and hence the suit. The defendant filed the written statement denying the executing of the pronote and further contending that he had a lorry business and the plaintiff is only to run the lorry and the plaintiff took the same and running the lorry of the defendant. In that connection, the defendant executed some blank documents in favour of the plaintiff and due to the differences the pronote might have been fabricated. The transfer endorsement is nominal and no consideration was passed. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A- 1 and A-2. On behalf of the defendant,DW.1 was examined. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court, the present revision is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the transferor of the plaintiff and executed the pronote? (2) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount? (3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (4) To what relief? POINTS:- The counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is absolutely no proof about the execution of the pronote and passing of the consideration and none of the persons associated with the documents have been examined and the evidence of PW.1 is of no use. Therefore, according to him, even if a blank paper theory is set up by the defendant, it cannot be taken into consideration. Evidently, the plaintiff is not the original holder of the pronote. He is a transferor for consideration. The evidence of plaintiff shows that he was not present at the time of execution of pronote. He did not see the passing of the consideration. Therefore, his single testimony cannot prove the execution of Ex.A-1 pronote. If once the execution of the pronote is not proved, the transfer obtained by him by payment of consideration cannot also be taken into consideration. It is necessary for the plaintiff to have examined the original holder of the pronote or at least the scribe and attesters of the pronote. If such evidence is there on record, then the court may be justified in accepting the blank paper theory but as matter stands the evidence of PW.1 who is the plaintiff does not prove the execution of the pronote or passing of the consideration. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the lower court suffers from serious infirmity and accordingly the same is set aside and the small cause suit is dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 13-12-2010 TSNR