Judgment :- The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. A suit for recovery of money on a promissory note, initiated by him, has been dismissed by the Lower Court. As against the dismissal of the suit, the present revision has been filed. 2. In the written statement, the specific case of the defendant is that in a printed promissory note over the stamp he has signed and delivered the blank promissory note in the hands of the plaintiff.In fact he confirms the same in evidence when he was examined as D-W1. Unfortunately, the trial Court has held that the defendant has not even signed in Ex. A1 which is the promissory note. The lower Court relied upon some differences found in the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 with reference to passing of consideration, and dismissed the suit. 3. The Judgment of the Lower Court has to be set aside, in view of the provision of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Section 20 reads as thus :- 'Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount. Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder'. Further the learned authors of the Negotiable Instruments Act comment as follows :- 'The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular, in either case, the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one'. Further the learned authors of the Negotiable Instruments Act comment as follows :- 'The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular, in either case, the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one'. "The authority implied by a signature to a blank instrument is so wide that the party so signing is bound to be a holder in due course even though the holder was authoritied to fill for a certain amount, and he in fact inserts a greater amount, but it is necessary that the sum ought not to exceed the amount covered by the stamp". Therefore, once it is admitted that the defendant has signed the promissory note, his liability cannot be denied. I am fortified in my view by the case reported in Chidambaram v. P. T. Ponnusamy, 1995 (2) Law weekly, 719 wherein this Court has held that: "from a reading of the above Section, it is clear that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is itself authority to the holder of inchoate stamped and signed instrument to fill up the blanks and to negotiable the instrument. The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in particular and in either case the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one". 4. The defendant having admitted in clear categorical terms both in the written statement and in the evidence that he only signed the promissory note Ex. A1, the suit must have been decreed by the Court below. I, therefore, set aside the Judgment and decree of the Court below and decree the suit as prayed for with costs. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed No costs. Petition allowed.