The judgment emphasizes the importance of properly framing points for consideration and the need for evidence on specific pleas, such as the plea of small farmer, in accordance with relevant legal provisions.

( 1 ) THE present CRP is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in SC No. 252 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Chittoor.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondent in the CRP who is the plaintiff in SC No. 252/98 filed the suit against the revision petitioner-defendant for recovery of Rs. 8,630/- with costs and future interest as prayed for from the date of suit till the date of realisation (the parties for the purpose of convenience will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant ). The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on 3-8-1995 for his family necessity and for business and executed a promissory note promising to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum, which is marked as Ex. A1. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands and also issuing a registered notice dated 10-6-1998 the defendant failed to repay the same. The office copy of the notice is marked as Ex. A2 and a postal acknowledgment is marked as ex. A3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of the promissory note and also denying doing any medical shop business and the defendant specifically pleaded that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act 4 of 1938, Act 45 of 1987 and Act 2 of 1990. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs sister was proposed to defendant to be given in marriage and subsequently the said proposal was dropped and since then misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff and defendant and just to wreak vengeance, the present suit was filed on the basis of a forged promissory note.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff. PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, dws. 1 and 2 were examined. PW1 is the plaintiff and PW2 is one of the attestors of Ex. A1 and DW1 is the defendant and dw2 is the scribe of the promissory note, ex. Al. The Court below had framed the following point for consideration:"whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount?"

( 4 ) AFTER discussing the oral and documentary evidence in detail at paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment, the Court below had decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the present CRP was filed by the unsuccessful defendant.

( 5 ) SRI P. V. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had contended that there are material alterations in the suit promissory note and the ink used to write the figure Rs. 5,000/- on the top of Ex. Al is different from the ink used to write the contents of Ex. A1. Learned counsel also contended that the defendant had never executed Ex. A1 and the signature on Ex A1 is a forged one. Learned Counsel further contended that the evidence of dw2, the scribe of Ex. Al, clearly goes to show that suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration and DW1 had never signed Ex. Al. Learned Counsel also contended that though a specific plea was taken relating to the aspect of small farmer, specific point for consideration was not framed in this regard. Learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the cases reported in Jayantilal Gael v. Smt. Zubeda khanum, AIR 1968 AP 120, A. Subba Reddy v. Neelapa Reddi, AIR 1966 AP 267, kalianna Gounder v. Ivanpalani Gounder and another; AIR 1970 SC 1942, Loonkaran sethia v. E. John, AIR 1977 SC 336, and Anirudhan v. Thomco s Bank, AIR 1963 sc 746. The learned Counsel also had contended that the Court below had totally erred in comparing the signature on its own accord resorting to Section 73 of the Indian evidence Act.

( 6 ) SRI Balaji representing Mr. Gudapati Venkateshwar Rao learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff supported the judgment of the Court below. The learned Counsel had contended that the suit promissory note Ex. Al was proved by plaintiff by examining one of the attestors of Ex. Al as PW2 and the learned Counsel also had pointed out that even the scribe of Ex. Al was examined on behalf of the defendant as DW2 and in his evidence he h