( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the petitioner before this court. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,681. 30 from the petitioner herein before the learned trial judge. The plaintiff/respondent proceeded on the basis that the defendant/petitioner had taken loan of Rs. 5,000. 00 from the plaintiff-Bank towards agricultural expenses on 22-8-1988. The said loan was collaterally secured by agreement for hypothecation executed by the defendant/ petitioner on the same day in terms whereof he had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 11. 5% per annum. It is the further case of the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant/petitioner executed revival letters on 26-10-1989 and 21-10-1992.

( 2 ) THE defendant/petitioner in his written statement admitted the borrowing of the aforementioned sum. He, however, denied the execution of the hypothecation agreement, revival letters, etc.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff/respondent in support of its claim examined two witnesses and proved certain documents, which were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-6. The defendant/ petitioner also deposed in the suit and exhibited certain documents. He also examined one Sanga Narayana. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues for consideration:" (1) Whether the defendant did not execute Ex. A-l revival letter dated 21-10-92 and as such the suit is barred by limitation? (2) Whether the suit debt is wiped off under the Agricultural and Rural debt Relief Scheme, 1990? (3) Whether the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to a decree against the defendant for the entire suit amount or any part thereof?

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge while deciding issue No. 1, inter alia, held that the disputed document viz. , Ex. A-l, was in fact signed by the petitioner herein and as such the suit is not barred by limitation. As regards issue no. 2, it was held that the petitioner herein is not entitled to the benefit of debt relief. The said issue was also answered in favour of the respondent herein and against the petitioner. On issue No. 3, it was held:"the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence contained in Exs. A-l to A-6 is overwhelmingly proving that barring Rs. 1,000. 00 paid under Ex. A-2, the defendant did not at all repay any amount due under the suit loan. Further the said part payment of rs. 1,000/- covered by Ex. A-2 had been already given credit as can be seen from Ex. A-5 ledger extract and also as per the evidence of P. W. 1. In view of my findings on point Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-Bank, i am convinced to answer this point also in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and against the defendant holding that the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to a decree against the defendant for the entire suit amount of Rs. 9,681. 30. "

( 5 ) MR. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, inter alia, submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner had denied and disputed the correctness or otherwise of three documents, viz. , Exs. A-l, A-4 and a-6, the learned Court below having regard to the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian evidence Act ought not to have undertaken the task of comparing the disputed signature. The learned Counsel would submit that a bare perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff/ respondent would clearly show that whereas P. W. 1 stated that all the documents were executed at the Bank, p. W. 2 stated that the same were executed in the village and thus having regard to the aforementioned discrepancy, the learned court below ought to have come to the conclusion that the impugned documents had not been signed by his client. The learned Counsel further urged that even no countersignature was obtained on the said papers. The attention of this Court, however, has been drawn to the signatures obtained on agreement for hypothecation, revival letter No. 1 and some other documents to show that the purported signatures of the petitioner therein greatly vary.

( 6 ) THE short que