JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the decree and Judgment dated 30.09.2011 in O.S.No.244 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet (for short, 'the trial Court'). The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.244 of 2005 seeking recovery of Rs.9,62,811/- with interest and costs from the defendant based on the three promissory notes.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

(a) The defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.03.1998, Rs.1,15,000/- on 29.04.1998 and Rs.1,16,000/- on 13.05.1999 respectively, from the plaintiff and executed three promissory notes with his handwriting in his favour, agreeing to repay the amount with 36% interest per annum. The defendant made part payments of Rs.1,000/- on 25.03.2001, Rs.500/- on 20.03.2004 under a promissory note dated 27.03.1998 and also made part payments of Rs.70,000/- on 12.08.2000 and Rs.500/- on 10.08.2003 under promissory note dated 29.04.1998 and also made part payments of Rs.1,000/- on 06.05.2002 and Rs.500/- on 04.05.2005 under promissory note dated 13.05.1999. The part payments were endorsed on the back of respective promissory notes. Subsequently, the defendant failed to discharge the remaining balance amounts due and postponed the payment on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 01.09.2005.

4. In the written statement, the defendant refuted the allegations made in the plaint, contending that the plaintiff did not lend any amount to him; the plaintiff is a small Ryot and has no capacity to lend such huge amounts; one Byka Brahmareddy is a brother-in-law of the plaintiff, who used to assist the defendant in his business transactions; he has financial dealings with the said Brahmareddy, who used to get promissory notes for no consideration and also used to obtain signatures on blank promissory notes; he denies the execution of suit promissory notes, passing of consideration and also the part payment endorsements; the said Brahmareddy is a blackmailer; the defendant simply believed and signed some documents to his dictations.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

(2) Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one as pleaded by the defendant in his written statement?

(3) To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, he examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved the same, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the present Appeal.

8. Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff, argued that the trial Court erred in reframing the Issue No.2 after completion of the arguments and shifted the burden on the plaintiff without giving any opportunity to adduce evidence; the trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff did not examine the attestor of the promissory notes, did not take steps to send the suit promissory notes to the Handwriting Expert and did not request the Court to compare the signatures on the promissory notes with the admitted signatures of the defendant; if the opinion of the Handwriting Expert is available, it is not binding on the Court and it is for the Court alone to compare and come to a correct conclusion; the trial Court ought to have seen that the transactions between the defendant and Brahmareddy, who happens to be brother-in-law of the plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit promissory notes and an adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of the Brahmareddy since he is not the attestor of the suit promissory notes.

The learned counsel for