R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the plaintiff in SC No. 154 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. District Munsiff, Kakinada questioning the decree and judgment dated 20-12-1993 by which the suit was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner who is the plaintiff had filed the said suit seeking recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 3,900. 00 from the defendant contending that the defendant, who is the present respondent, executed the suit pro-note on 12-6-1991 and borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,000. 00from him agreeing to repay the same and that he subsequently failed to discharge the said debt. The defendant contested the suit contending that he never executed the pro-note in favour of the plaintiff and the pro-note is a forged one, that there is also a material alteration in the promote and that, therefore, the suit is not maintainable on the basis of such a pro-note.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the evidence adduced before it, the lower Court came to a clear conclusion that the suit pro-note is true, valid and was infact executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff having borrowed the pro-note amount and that there is no material alteration in the pro-note

Click Here to Read the rest of this document