HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1464 OF 2010 ORDER: The appellant filed O.S. No.69 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Senior Judge, Kurnool, against the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- on the basis of a promissory note, dated 06-03-2001. It is stated that the appellant is a Commission Agent. He alleged that the respondent, who is a farmer, growing commercial crops, has borrowed a sum of Rs.59,000/- on 06-03-2001 and executed the promissory note for repayment thereof. It was further pleaded that inspite of demand notice, he did not repay the amount. 2. The respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to him, he used to sell the commercial crops through the appellant and that he did not borrow the amount, much less did he execute the promissory note. It is stated that in view of certain differences between himself and the appellant, the latter had fabricated promissory note and filed the suit. Through its judgment, dated 17-04-2008, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S. No.40 of 2008 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal through judgment, dated 16-12-2009. Hence, this Second Appeal. 3. Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a clear admission by the respondent as D.W-1 to the effect that he had financial transactions with the appellant and that was sufficient to believe execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note. He submits that though the experts, who were examined as PW-2 and DW-2, opined that there is variation in the undisputed writing on the one hand and the disputed writing on the promissory note Ex.A-1 on the other, a clear opinion was expressed to the effect that the scribe may have adopted a different slant, laying foundation for future denial. He further submits that the very fact that Ex.A-1 was scribed in the handwriting of the respondent, would lead to a conclusion that the transaction is genuine. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:- 1. Whether this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? 2. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? 3. Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Act IV of 1938 ? 5. On behalf of the appellant, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court has taken on record, Exs.X-1 to X-9 and Exs.C-1 to C-5. The suit was dismissed and the appeal filed against it also dismissed. 6. In a suit for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note, the burden squarely rests upon the plaintiff to prove the promissory note. Though the document is not required to be attested under the Evidence Act, the signature of a witness, who was present at the time of transaction, would go a very long way to prove it. No witness signed on Ex.A-1, promissory note in question. It is said to have been scribed by the respondent himself. 7. The mere fact that the respondent admitted that there existed transactions between himself and the appellant does not lend any support for the proof of Ex.A-1. The appellant ought to have adduced independent evidence by examining the persons, who are acquainted with the transaction. Assuming that no one was present at the time of the alleged transaction, he could have filed the account books, since he happens to be a commission Agent. Failure to file account books, would certainly lead to inference against him. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have discussed the matter at length with reference to the evidence on record, particularly, opinions given by the experts. No question of law arises for consideration. 8. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J April 07, 2011 KTL