J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). at Baroda in Special Civil Suit No. 312 of 1972 on 30-12-1975. Thus the plaintiffs have invoked the aids of the provisions of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (`code for short hereinafter) and have now come up before this Court by way of this appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated at the out set. ( 3 ) THE present appellants are the original plaintiffs who instituted the above suit for re- covery of Rs. 13 810 from the present respondent/original defendant on the basis of nine pro- notes. ( 4 ) THE appellants who are the original plaintiffs inter alia contended by filing the above suit that they had advanced a sum of Rs. 13 810 to the respondent who is the original de- fendant for his contract work on different dates on the basis of pro-nots. The original defendant had executed nine pro-notes as follows: @@@ -- sr. No. Date Amount -- 1 11 1 0 2 23 200 3 27 400 4 30 1 0 5 5 4 200 6 9 1 655 7 17 1 770 8 26 2 40 9 31 1 545 13 810 - ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs demanded the said amount with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the original defendant. Origianl defendant failed to pay the said amount. Therefore the plaintiffs instituted the above suit on 8-12-1972. Defendant-contractor appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement at Ex. 20. He inter alia contended that the suit amount was not due from him. He denied to have executed the pro-note. Alternatively he contended that the suit pro-notes were without consideration. He also contended that such a big amount of Rs. 13 810 would not have been taken by him within a spell of 49 days. He pleaded that he had entered into a contract for the construction of Padra-Karjan Road with the District Panchayat at Baroda. It was a big contract work involving about Rs. 5 lacs and there was an oral partnership with the plaintiffs for that work. 13 810 would not have been taken by him within a spell of 49 days. He pleaded that he had entered into a contract for the construction of Padra-Karjan Road with the District Panchayat at Baroda. It was a big contract work involving about Rs. 5 lacs and there was an oral partnership with the plaintiffs for that work. The son of plaintiff No. 1 one Girishbhai was also appointed as defendants power of attorney to withdraw the amounts and to supervise the contract work. The plaintiffs had made payments to the labourers. The plaintiffs had also maintained all accounts and the same were in their possession. It was further contended by the defendant that the plain- tiffs were dealing with money lending business without licence. In short the whole suit carne to be contested. ( 6 ) IN view of the pleadings of the parties issues came to be raised at Ex. 21. The oral evidence is consisted of two witnesses. Plaintiff No. 1 Mr. Mangubhai Mansukhram Pandya was examined at Ex. 35 and defendant Pranjivan Tribhovandas Purohit was examined at Ex. 47. The plaintiffs relied on nine pro-notes as stated above and produced at Exhs. 36 to 44. No other documentary evidence is produced. ( 7 ) IN view of the analysis and appreciation of the evidence oral as well as documentary on record the learned trial Court Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit with costs. ( 8 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the original plaintiffs have now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants/ original plaintiffs Mr. Y. S. Mankad for Mr. B. H. Shah advocate appeared and made submissions. Respondent/original defendant was served. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Mankad for the original plaintiffs has contended that the im- pugned judgment and decree are totally perverse and illegal. He has argued that the plain- tiffs have successfully proved the suit claim on the basis of the pro-notes. This Court is taken through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record. ( 11 ) IT is amply clear from the evidence on record that the pro-notes produced at Exhs. 36 to 44 are on the letter-pads of the defendant who was working as a Government contractor. This Court is taken through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record. ( 11 ) IT is amply clear from the evidence on record that the pro-notes produced at Exhs. 36 to 44 are on the letter-pads of the defendant who was working as a Government contractor. The defendant had taken a contract to construct Padra-Karjan Road before the suit transactions. Plaintiff No. 1 Mr. M. M. Pandya has clearly testified in his evidence at Ex. 35 that all the nine pro-notes produced at Exhs. 36 to 44 are executed and signed by defendant in his presence. It is also admitted by the defendant that the said pronotes are on his letter-pads. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiffs on this score. The learned trial Court Judge has not believed the evidence of the plaintiffs as regards the execution of the pro-notes by the defendant merely on the ground that one witness Jayantilal Nageshwar through whom the plaintiffs were introduced to the defendant is not examined by the plaintiffs. It appears the learned trial Court Judge has failed to appreciate that the said person Jayantilal Nageshwar was a Munim (Account- ant) of the defendant. The defendant has admitted this position in his evidence in paragraph 1 at Ex. 47. Not only that he has also admitted that he would examine Jayantilal Nageshwar as his wit- ness. A person who is working as an accountant with the defendant who introduced the plaintiffs to the defendant if not examined by the plaintiffs under these circumstances could it be said that it would be fatal to the case of the plaintiffs ? And the spontaneous answer would be in the negative. It is an admitted fact that the defendant had taken a contract worth Rs. 5 lacs for the construction of Padra-Karjan Road. He had engaged as many as 70 labourers. The defendant has also admitted in his evidence that the pro-notes are written on his letter-pads. It is also very clear from the evidence of the defendant himself that the plaintiffs were making payments to the labourers of the defen- dant. It is also categorically admitted by the defendant that the plaintiffs used to adjust the amount of Rs. 150. 00 paid to Girishbhai every month. The adjustment of this amount against what ? It is also very clear from the evidence of the defendant himself that the plaintiffs were making payments to the labourers of the defen- dant. It is also categorically admitted by the defendant that the plaintiffs used to adjust the amount of Rs. 150. 00 paid to Girishbhai every month. The adjustment of this amount against what ? In the circumstances of the present case the evidence of the defendant is not reliable. The evidence of the plaintiffs is very clear to prove that there was no partnership with the defendant. ( 12 ) THE defendants one of the contentions in the written statement was that there was an oral talk of partnership with the plaintiffs. However he has admitted that he had never talked directly with the plaintiffs for partnership but it was a talk through one Jayantilal Nageshwar who is his Munim. Jayantilal Nageshwar is not examined by the defendant though he is his Munim. Thus the contention that there was an oral partnership with the plaintiffs is not proved and it appears that it was falsely raised. ( 13 ) THIS is not a case of a poor illiterate unsophisticated villager. The defendant is a Gov- ernment contractor and he is literate sophisticated person and the pro-notes are executed on his letter-pads. The signatures of the defendant on the pro-notes are duly proved. There is no slightest doubt about the execution of all the pronotes by the defendant. ( 14 ) THE learned trial Court Judge has also seriously erred in holding in para 8 of the judg- ment that the plaintiffs have not proved the consideration of the suit pro-notes. It appears that the attention of the learned trial Court Judge was not drawn to the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Provisions of this Section raises a presumption that the nego- tiable instrument is made for the consideration metioned therein. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a statutory presumption that there was considereration for every nego- tiable instrument. The presumption continues until it is rebutted and only where it can be rebutted by proving the contrary i. e. negotiable instrument was without consideration. So the onus of proving that there was no consideration was on the defendant. The trial Court has not taken into consideration Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption continues until it is rebutted and only where it can be rebutted by proving the contrary i. e. negotiable instrument was without consideration. So the onus of proving that there was no consideration was on the defendant. The trial Court has not taken into consideration Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Needless to men- tion that in a case based on pro-notes the initial burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove execution of the pro-notes and when this burden is discharged then the Court shall raise a presumption in favour of the plaintiffs for holding that the pro-notes were for consideration and it will be for the defendant to rebut that presumption. Therefore the observations of the learned trial Court Judge in para 8 of the judgment about the failure of the plaintiffs to prove consideration of the pro-notes are unwarranted and against the statutory presumptions arising out of Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ( 15 ) THE defendant has also failed to prove that there was no consideration. The presumption under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instuments Act has not been rebutted by the defendant by leading any evidence. A person who was engaged in Government contract work worth Rs. 5 lacs and a person who used to engage about 70 labourers for such a project must be maintaining accounts book. The defendant has not led any documentary or oral evidence to show that either there was a partnership with the plaintiffs or to rebut the presumption of consideration of the pro-notes. ( 16 ) THE trial Court has also erred in drawing adverse inference against the plaintiffs for non- examination of Jayantilal Nageshwar. In fact adverse inference can be drawn for non-examina- tion of Jayantilal Nageshwar against the defendant as Jayantilal Nageshwar happened to be his Munim. The observatins of the learned trial Court Judge on this score also are erroneous. The reli- ance placed by the learned trial Court Judge on the decision reported in AIR 1957 Allahabad 119 is also erroneous. It is true that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act it would not be prudent and expedient to solely place reliance on comparison of signatures. The ratio of the deci- sion of the Allahabad High Court (supra) is that it would not be safe to base conclusion entirely on such comparison. It is true that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act it would not be prudent and expedient to solely place reliance on comparison of signatures. The ratio of the deci- sion of the Allahabad High Court (supra) is that it would not be safe to base conclusion entirely on such comparison. It cannot be said that the comparison of signatures with admitted signa- tures would not be useful as one of the circumstances in reaching to a conclusion. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly prescribes that in order to ascertain whether a signature is that of a particular person by whom it purports to have been made his signature can be compared with the admitted signature. So for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the disputed signature with admitted signature specific provision is made in Section 73 of the Indian Evi- dence Act. The trial Court Judge has failed to appreciate the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court. Be as it may. The comparison question under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act would not assume any significance in the present case as there is other clear evidence on record to prove the execution of pro-notes. ( 17 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the evidence referred to hereinbe- fore it is very clear that the suit pro-notes were executed by the defendant. The defendant has totally failed to prove that the pro-notes were without consideration. This Court is fully satis- fied that the plaintiffs had advanced a sum of Rs. 13 810 on the basis of the pro-notes executed by the defendant. Therefore the finding of the learned trial Court Judge on this point requires to be set aside. ( 18 ) NEXT question that arises now is as to what amount of interest should be awarded to the plaintiffs on the suit dues. The plaintifffs have claimed 15% interest. There is no specific agree- ment or contract about interest on the suit dues. The pro-notes were executed in the year 1969. The suit came to be filed on 8-12-1972. In the facts of the present case it would be just and reasonable to award interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of the suit till its realisation. The pro-notes were executed in the year 1969. The suit came to be filed on 8-12-1972. In the facts of the present case it would be just and reasonable to award interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of the suit till its realisation. ( 19 ) IN the result the impugned judgment and decree are hereby quashed. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed. The respondent/original defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 13 810 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till its realisation with costs all throughout to the appellants/original plaintiffs. The appeal is allowed accordingly. .