In case of diverse views opinion of hand writing expert opinion should be obtained.

The Civil Revision Petitioner / Respondent / Plaintiff has filed the present revision before this Court as against the judgment and decree dated 111. 2002 passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz., Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.184/2001 in O.S.No.82/1999, on the file of learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur.

(2) The Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.82/1999 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur against the Respondent / Appellant / Defendant for a recovery of a sum of Rs.24,610/- with interest thereto, along with costs, on the basis of execution of a Promissory Note dated 10.07.1996 by the Respondent / Defendant. After contest, the Trial Court passed the judgment dated 18.07.2001 in favour of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff.

(3) Aggrieved against the judgment dated 18.07.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court viz., learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur, in O.S.No.82/1999, Respondent / Defendant filed A.S.No.184/2001 on the file of learned Appellate Authority viz., Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The learned Appellate Authority viz., the Principal District Judge has allowed the appeal in A.S.No.184/2001 on 111. 2002, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur made in O.S.No.82/1999 dated 18.07.2001 and resultantly dismissed the suit.

(4) According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff, the Appellate Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit Promissory Note is a fabricated one and that the Appellate Court has committed an error in comparing the signature found in Ex.A1 – Promissory Note with the admitted signature without getting the opinion of an expert and that the reasoning assigned by the Appellate Court in dismissing the suit are unsustainable both in law and on facts of the case and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

(5) The main grievance of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff is that when once the execution of Promissory Note is established in the case, the burden shifts on the Respondent / Defendant in regard to the execution and non receipt of consideration and these were not taken into consideration by the Appellate Court, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

(6) Before the Trial Court on the side of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the Respondent / Defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

(7) It is the plea of the Respondent / Defendant that he never borrowed any amount from the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff and that the suit Promissory note is a rank forgery and a close relative of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff one Natarajan, asked the Respondent/Defendant to sell his house and since the Respondent/Defendant refused the same, with connivance and assistance of their yes man the suit Promissory Note has been fabricated. The further stand of respondent / defendant is that the signature in the Pronote does not belong to him.

(8) It is pertinent to point out that the Trial Court has opined that the discrepancy found in the evidence of PW2 – Pandurangan, in regard to the writing of the Promissory Note will not affect the totality of the case, and that the signature of the defendant found in the Promissory Note has been established through the PW2 – Pandurangan (witness in the Promissory Note) and PW3 – Natarajan (writer of the pronote) and has come to the further conclusion that the Respondent / Defendant has received the consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- and executed the Promissory Note and decreed the suit accordingly.

(9) The learned Appellate Authority viz., the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in the judgment in A.S.No.184/2001 dated 111. 2002 has inter-alia observed that a material discrepancy has come out from the oral evidence of P.W.1 to 3 with regard t