JUDGMENT :

Defendant in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

2. For hearing before admission, notice was taken out to respondent and the same was personally served on respondent on 06.08.2012. But no appearance has been made at any time thereafter. Therefore this appeal has been taken up for hearing exparte.

3. The controversy between the parties is a debt transaction based on a promissory note. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.249 of 2009 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram stating that on 10.11.2003 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from him and agreed to repay with interest @ 24% P.A. and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant paid Rs.5,000/- on 30.10.2006 and Rs.100/- on 7.05.2008. On both occasions defendant himself made acknowledgments of such part payments on the reverse side of the promissory note. Subsequently as the defendant failed to repay the balance due, plaintiff got issued a notice of demand dated 03.03.2009 to which there was no response from the defendant and therefore claiming the principal and interest accrued there on the suit is laid for Rs.63,380/-.

4. In contest defendant filed a written statement. That the suit promissory note and payment endorsements are created and forged. That there are disputes between him and the plaintiff and therefore plaintiff filed the suit to harass him. It is pleaded that the date of pronote was originally 10.01.2003 and to save limitation plaintiff altered it as 10.11.2003. The suit is barred by limitation. He also pleaded that on 12.08.2004 there was a settlement between both parties and that debt was only Rs.10,500/- and defendant paid Rs.5,000/- and plaintiff passed a receipt. Subsequently, he repaid the balance also. However, plaintiff filed the false suit and therefore he sought for dismissal of it.

5. On these rival pleadings the learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial:-

“1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one brought into existence due to disputes/strained relationship of both parties?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief?”

6. In support of their contentions, plaintiff deposed as Pw.1 and an attestor to the promissory note deposed as Pw.2. As against that defendant deposed as Dw.1. On behalf of plaintiff the pronote was marked as Ex.A1 and two payment endorsements are marked as Exs.A2 and A3 respectively. A notice dated 03.03.2009 issued by plaintiff was marked as Ex.A4. As against that a notice dated 11.02.2004 got issued on behalf of plaintiff and received by defendant was marked as Ex.B1. The receipt for Rs.5,000/- bearing date 12.09.2004 was marked as Ex.B2. The learned trial Court considered the evidence on both sides and the arguments on both sides and observed that defendant as Dw.1 admitted that there were no disputes between him and the plaintiff and there were no disputes between him and Pw.2/the attestor. On the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it found that, having borrowed Rs.30,000/- defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and that is a true and valid document. The contention of the defendant that, he had given a blank pronote to the plaintiff was dis-believed by the learned trial Court recording a finding that during the course of cross examination of defendant/Dw.1 was shown Ex.A1 pronote and he categorically stated that the blank pronote he had given to plaintiff is different from Ex.A1 promissory note. Since the defendant disputed his signatures, learned trial Court observed that it had compared signatures on Ex.A1 as against admitted signatures of defendant available on Vakalath and written statement and chief examination affidavit in terms of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and found that all of them are similar and identical. Observing that evidence of P