B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) ). THE judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge in S. C. No. 4 of 1996 dated 21-2-1997 are challenged in this revision petition.

( 2 ) ). The petitioners are the defendants in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed on the basis of a pronote for recovery of rs. 5,000/- with interest and costs. The defendants pleaded to have discharged the pronote on payment of Rs. 7,293. 00 on 18-4-1994 but in spite of the payment, the pronote was not returned by the plaintiff. They also contended that the purported signatures to the endorsement dated 5-11-1994 upon which the suit was based for the purpose of limitation had been forged. After trial, the learned sub-Judge rejected the defence as above and decreed the suit.

( 3 ) ). In addition to the grounds raised in the petition, Mr. Valluru, the learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the finding of the learned Sub-Judge is opposed to the evidence on record and patently an error. In regard to the discharge of the pronote, he has pointed out that the learned Sub-Judge except referring that D. W. 2 stated in his presence that he paid Rs. 7,923. 00, no reasons are given to state whether it is accepted or rejected and therefore, there is a legal error amounting to legal lacuna which cannot be supported. This Court is unable to agree with the contention, the reason being that the evidence of the discharge of pronote based merely on the sworn testimony of D. Ws. l and 2 is not supported by any documentary evidence and does not find any supporting material or probability. They even took a stand that in spite of the demand made to the plaintiff to return the pronote after discharge of the amount, it was not returned. The only supporting material is the reply notice Ex. A-4 to the notice Ex. A-3. When such a stand is taken, such a conduct should also enforce itself to the probability. The amount discharged was quite a heavy one. For a lesser amount borrowed under the pronote, a document has come into existence but for a larger amount discharged, no document has come into existence. Possibly, the intrinsic reasoning of the learned Judge on such material merely based upon the testimony did not judicially convince itself that the plea of discharge was established. At any rate, this Court has supplemented that reasoning with the material.

( 4 ) THE next contention of Mr. Valluru regarding forgery pleaded by the defendants about the endorsement on Ex. A-2, the learned Sub-Judge himself stated that the scribe was not examined and that itself is a lacuna. No law says that the scribe of an endorsement should be examined as it is not one of the documents required by law to be attested or scribed. Endorsement can be written by the parties themselves. There is oath against oath in this regard. The learned Sub-Judge has accepted the proof of Ex. A-2. This Court should not find its own reasons to reject it. The law is also clear that a judgment in a small cause suit need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon in view of Order 20 Rule 4 (1) CPC which this Court cannot alter, and if some reasons are given unless they are absurd, the High court in revision under Section 115 C. P. C cannot supplement its reasons contrary to the finding. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. In so far as the proof of suit debt is concerned, and the liability of the respondents to pay it, the findings of the learned Sub-Judge cannot be disturbed.

( 5 ) A serious ground raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the suit is barred by limitation on failure to prove Ex. A-2, the endorsement on the suit pronote. As a matter of fact, such a finding is confirmed as above as regards the proof of Ex. A-2. Ex. A-1, the suit pronote is dated 10-4-1994. Ex. A-2, the endorsement is dated 5-11-1994. The suit was filed on 2-2-1996. The period of limitation for a suit based on a pronote is 3 years from the date of pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document