( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendant in S. C. No. 239 of 1988 on the file of the learned Prl. Subordinate Judge, Chittoor against the judgment and decree dated 8-9-1989 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: The respondent-Finance Corporation filed the suit on the basis of a promissory note Ex. A-1 dated 9-12-1987 executed by the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p. a. Though in the body of the promissory note, the names of the petitioner and his son Hemadri were mentioned as borrowers, the suit promissory note was executed by the petitioner only. Hence the respondent filed the suit against the petitioner alone. In spite of repeated demands made by the respondent, the petitioner failed to repay the suit debt. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed a written statement denying in general the plaint averments and raising the following contentions. On 9-12-1987 the petitioner went to the respondent for a loan of Rs. 1,500/ -. The respondent insisted that the petitioner and his son Hemadri should execute the promissory note jointly; then only the respondent will pay the amount. As the son of the petitioner was not available then, the petitioner alone executed two promissory notes each for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- on the same day, as the respondent usually takes two promissory notes for the same amount lent by him. The respondent is in the habit of advancing half of the amount and takes a promissory note for double the amount paid or obtains two promissory notes for the same amount Thus the petitioner had toexecuted twopromissory noteson the same day each forasum of Rs. 1,500/-, though actually he did not receive any amount under those promissory notes. Thus the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. As the son of the petitioner did not execute the promissory note, though his name was also shown as executant, the suit promissory note is incomplete and hence it is unenforceable. When the petitioner insisted the respondent to return the suit promissory notes, he represented that they were destroyed and that he need not worry. The petitioner believed the representation of the respondent, but was shocked to see that he filed two suits on the basis of the two promissory notes. There is no cause of action for the suit. At the time of execution of the promissory notes, there were actually no attestors. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 4 ) THE respondent examined himself as P. W. I and marked the suit promissory note as Ex. A-1. The petitioner examined himself as D. W. I. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Court below decreed the suit holding that the petitioner failed to prove his case of failure of consideration under the suit promissory note Ex. A-1 and that he failed to prove that the promissory note came into existence under the circumstances stated by him in his written statement. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ex. A-1 suit promissory note is an incomplete and unenforceable document, having mentioned two names i. e. , the petitioner and his son, in the body as executants binding themselves jointly and severally, but was executed by the petitioner alone. It is also contended by him that the finding of the Court below that the promissory note Ex. A-1 is supported by consideration is erroneous and illegal. In support of his contention he relied on the evidence of P. W. I (i. e.)/ the respondent, who stated in the chief-examination itself that in Ex. A-1 the name of the petitioner s son was also mentioned as executant, but he did not actually sign the promissory note Ex. A.-l, as he was notavailable and that the petitioner