JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba J. 1. This writ petition is by the defendant against the Judgment and orders of the trial court and the revisional Court whereby the suit of the plaintiffrespondent no, 3 for eviction was decreed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the point of service of the notice of demand and eviction which was said so have been served on the defendantpetitioner. It is contended that the defendantpetitioner had categorically stated in the written statement that no notice was received by him. In the witness box, the defendant categorically stated that the acknowledgment due receipt, paper No. 9C, did not contain his signatures and that his signatures thereon were forged. The submission further made is that despite this positive denial and the statement on oath given by the defendantpetitioner, the learned trial court accepted the service of notice even though there was no evidence to rebut the statement of the defendantpetitioner. 3. As would appear from the written statement, copy Annexure 2, paragraph 6 of the plaint which contained an averment about the service of the notice was denied. Again, in paragraph 8 of the written statement it was expressly mentioned that no notice dated 4th September, 1986 was received by the tenant. To the same effect is the statement contained in paragraph 18 of the written statement. 4. A copy of the oral statement of the defendantpetitioner has also been filed as Annexure 4. In Para 2 of his statement, the defendant stated in categorical terms that he did not receive any notice and that paper No. 9C did not contain his signatures and the signatures thereon were fictitious. It appears, some cross examination was directed on this point. In paragraph 5 of the statement, he admitted that he could sign in English. However, he clearly denied his signatures on paper 9C. 5. Learned trial Court, it appears, did not discuss this aspect of the matter. Only thing stated in the judgment is that signatures of the defendant on paper No. 9C are proved. There is nothing to show that the statement of positive denial made by the defendant as to the receipt and service of notice and about his signatures was considered by the learned trial court. Only thing stated in the judgment is that signatures of the defendant on paper No. 9C are proved. There is nothing to show that the statement of positive denial made by the defendant as to the receipt and service of notice and about his signatures was considered by the learned trial court. In the absence of any discussion and process of reasoning, the bald finding is clearly of no effect; moreso, in the context of the case set up by the defendant and his statement on oath 6. Learned revisional Court, it appears, has considered this question. It has been mentioned as follows : I have gone through the signature on the notice, A. D. as well as on various order sheets and the tenant appears to know reading and writing well. The alphabets of the writing cannot, therefore, be disfigured or disguised to make similarity as at the time when the notice was given, there was no litigation and in fact that was the commencement of the litigation. Further, the reliance has been placed on 1988 A.L.J. 1005 and 1981 A.W.C. page 1540. The fact remains that if the defendant denies a notice, then the question is whether the A. D. received after service and signature on the same of the person denying before the Court shifts the burden on the plaintiff. In the present case, the postal receipt Ext. A2 is a public document and from the same, it is evident that the plaintiff had sent a notice. Ext. A3 is the signature on the A. D. returned after service by the agent or the Post Office to the plaintiff. The defendant Sripal in his statement said that he is unknown to the Post man. In view of these circumstances, when the plaintiff has closed his evidence and then the defendant examines himself without taking any plea in the written statement, the burden cannot shift on the plaintiff. The principle of burden of proof is that if no evidence is given, then the party must lose in the absence of that evidence. In this case, the documentary evidence is overwhelming and when oral testimony is supported by documentary evidence, that is to be given more weight than simple denial in solitary testimony. Moreover, the learned lower Court has held legality and validity of the notice and as such, this contention of the learned counsel also has no force. In this case, the documentary evidence is overwhelming and when oral testimony is supported by documentary evidence, that is to be given more weight than simple denial in solitary testimony. Moreover, the learned lower Court has held legality and validity of the notice and as such, this contention of the learned counsel also has no force. 7. No positive finding has been recorded that on comparison the signature on the disputed acknowledgment receipt are found to be of the defendent, Learned Court below appears to have been influenced by two circumstances, firstly, that the defendant admitted that the postman was unknown to him and, secondly, that the defendant had made a statement denying his signatures after the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff. Statement of the defendant has necessarily to be recorded after the plaintiff had given and closed his evidence. If any right of rebuttal had been sought by the plaintiff in the form of expert evidence or any other evidence, that could have been considered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ram Shakul Vs. State of U.P. and others (1987 (S) LCD 261) wherein it was held that it may not be desirable for a Judge to compare signatures himself to find out whether a forgery has been committed. This judgment contains reference to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Kali Ram (AIR 1979 Sup. Gourt, 14). The position as it appears, is that there was no substantive evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff in rebuttal of the positive denial of the defendant as to the receipt of the notice and also about the signatures on the acknowledgment due receipt. As is already mentioned, the trial court did not, at all, consider and assess the evidence on the point and the learned revisional Court, also did not consider as in what way the statement on oath of the defendant was liable to be rejected. In the facts as above, the writ petition merits to be allowed and the case requires to be remanded to the trial Court with the direction to decide it afresh according to law after affording opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, the impugned judgments of the two Courts below are quashed. In the facts as above, the writ petition merits to be allowed and the case requires to be remanded to the trial Court with the direction to decide it afresh according to law after affording opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, the impugned judgments of the two Courts below are quashed. The case is remanded to the trial court for decision afresh according to law and in keeping in view the observations contained in this judgment. It will be open to the parties to lead additional evidence on the question of service of the notice in question and about the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures on the acknowledgment due receipt. Parties will bear their own costs in this petition. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.10.1989.