Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.

.2. The suit by the appellant is one for recovery of money due under a promissory note dated 4. 1988 for Rs.3,000 with interest thereon. Ex.A-1 is the promissory note. When the transaction was not settled in spite of various demands, registered notice was issued through advocate on the basis of Ex.A-2 and the same was replied under Ex.A-4, wherein the defendant denied the liability under the note.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that he has not executed the suit promissory note, that the plaintiff had taken his signature in blank paper and that the same has been utilised by the plaintiff the purpose of creating the suit promissory note.

4. The parties went on trial before the trial court and, after taking evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court held that the suit promissory note was duly executed by the defendant, and, on the basis of presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.

5. The trial court relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and also Exs.A-1 to A-4 for the said purpose. P.Ws.2 and 3 are witnesses