ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19-7-1995 in Small cause Suit No. 126 of 1991 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, tenali, whereby the learned Subordinate judge has dismissed the suit which was filed on promissory note Ex. A-1 and transfer Endorsement in favour of the plaintiff therein, dated 10-9-1981 on another pronote dated 16-10-1989 i. e. , A-2. While dismissing the suit the learned Subordinate judge has observed that the plaintiff did not prove that the consideration was paid by him to late Prakasam under Exs. A-l and a-6 i. e. , promissory note date 16-10-1989 (on which endorsement Ex. A-2 was made ). It is also held that though Expert Opinion is available on record, no reliance can be placed on it on the ground that the said opinion dated 12-4-94 is not exhibited and the Expert who gave opinion in also not examined.

( 2 ) THIS order is attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the promissory notes were executed by the deceased and the suit deserves to be allowed; that the signatures on Exs. A-l and a-6 pro-notes are true admitted signatures of late Nelapati Prakasam were sent to the expert and the Expert has opined that they are one and the same and once the opinion of the Expert is available on record, it has to be considered as relevant piece of evidence and, therefore, the learned Subordinate judge should have allowed the suit.

( 3 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that against dismissal of small cause suit, revision is not maintainable and right to appeal lies to the petitioner. It is also contended that in the absence of evidence of the Expert, any opinion given by him is of no evidentiary value and is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) TO appreciate these contentions of the parties, I have gone through the entire material placed on record. As stated earlier the small cause suit was filed based on two pro-notes. Nelapati Prakasam, husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5, borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,000/- on 7-8-1989 from the plaintiff for meeting family expenses and executed a promissory note, Ex. A-l, agreeing to repay the sum with 24% interest per annum; he again borrowed another sum of Rs. 1,500/- from one Yesubu, father of the plaintiff on 16-10-1989 for agricultural expenses and executed Ex. A-2 pronote agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest per annum. The said Prakasam died on 19-7-1991 intestate without discharging pro-note debts. All the assets of the deceased devolved upon the defendants and they are in possession of the same. Hence, all the defendants are liable to discharge the amounts under the suit pro- notes from the assets of the deceased. Later ex. A-6 is transferred on 10-9-1991 in favour of the plaintiff by his father, under Ex. A-2 endorsement. When the suit amount was not paid by the legal heirs of late Prakasam, notice was issued on 18-9-1991 and even after receipt of the notice, the respondents - defendants failed to pay the amount, petitioner filed the suit.

( 5 ) THE second defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and 5th defendant remained ex parte. The defendants denied the various allegations made in the suit plaint and contended that during the lifetime of late Prakasam, there was no necessity for him to borrow the amounts under the alleged two pro-notes and they must have been forged and brought into existence after the demise of Prakasam. It is further contended that the deceased never informed the same to the defendants during his lifetime. It is further denied (sic. contended) that they have not inherited any property of late Prakasam. There is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) ON the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following three is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document