THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.639 of 2008 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment and decree in Small Cause Suit No.20 of 2004 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, by the defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,000/- on the ground that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,000/- and executed a pronote and in spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay the amount and hence the suit. The defendant contended that he has not borrowed any amount and the pronote is a forged one. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and no documents marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit and aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the defendant has borrowed the money and executed a pronote? (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower court is sustainable? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the approach of the lower court in finding fault with the defendant in not sending the document to an expert is not correct and it is for the plaintiff to prove the execution and passing of the consideration. He also pleads that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be accepted. As could be seen from the cross examination of PW.1, it is clear that he is not in the habit of lending money but he himself drafted Ex.A-1 and one Sidda Reddy and another Raghu were said to be present at the time of execution of the pronote under Ex.A-1 and the presence of Sidda Reddy is not reflected in Ex.A-1. Apart from the above fact, the cross examination of PW.1 does not show as to how he is interested in fabricating a document against the defendant. The evidence of PW.2 shows in cross examination that son of plaintiff is his classmate and the defendant and plaintiff were not present at the time when he reached the house of the plaintiff. According to him, none else was present and he does not know the defendant earlier. As against this evidence, the defendant could not say in his evidence as to what was the reason for the plaintiff to fabricate a document and to extract money from him. From the own evidence, it is quite clear that his father has taken loan LMB and he has discharged it. PW.1 is evidently an employee of the said Bank. The defendant himself has obtained a loan but clearly stated that he knows the plaintiff who was the Supervisor. Merely because, the defendant has denied the execution of the pronote, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be discarded. The execution and passing of the consideration was proved by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and there are improbabilities to discard the witnesses and the learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly decreed the suit. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR