JUDGMENT This is defendants second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of principal amount of Rs. 12,400/- along with interest and cost of notice amounting to Rs. 17,500/-. Civil Judge Class I, Rajnandgaon by judgment and decree dated 17.9.1980 passed in Civil Suit No. 7-B/79 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal and the District Judge, Rajnandgaon by judgment and decree dated 12.10.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 11-B/80 allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit only in relation to the principal amount, i.e., Rs. 12,400/-. Defendants being aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal. By order dated 31.7.1989, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, when acknowledgement in Ex. P-2 is under dispute, it was not on the part of the plaintiff-respondent to examine the hand-writing expert ? According to the plaintiff on 20.4.1977 deceased Ratanlal received a sum of Rs. 12,400/- for carrying on agricultural operation and for the need of the family. Plaintiffs case further is that deceased Ratanlal agreed for payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent per annum on the principal amount and in acknowledgment of the same executed promissory note (Ex. P-2). It is the assertion of the plaintiff that inspite of demand of notice, amount was not paid and accordingly the suit was filed. Defendants denied the allegation and their specific stand is that the deceased Ratanlal had not taken the loan amount of Rs. 12,400/- from the plaintiff. According to the defendants as deceased Ratanlal had not received the principal amount, said amount cannot be realised from them. It is relevant here to state that defendants are the sons and daughters of the deceased Ratanlal. According to the plaintiff after the death of Ratanlal they have inherited the movable and immovable properties left by him. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed various issues and on consideration of the materials placed before it, found that the plaintiff has not been able to prove receipt of Rs. 12,400/- by deceased Ratanlal as loan. Trial Court for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion has compared the signature of Ratanlal on the promissory note (Ex. P-2) and the acknowledgment (Ex. P-5) and it found variations in the figures. 12,400/- by deceased Ratanlal as loan. Trial Court for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion has compared the signature of Ratanlal on the promissory note (Ex. P-2) and the acknowledgment (Ex. P-5) and it found variations in the figures. It further found that three pens and three kinds of ink were used in preparation of the pronote and it further found differences in the hand-writing of Ratanlal on Ex. P-2 with his signature on the acknowledgment Ex. P-5. However, the lower appellate Court on consideration of the materials found that the promissory note (Ex. P-2) was executed by Ratanlal and after holding so decreed the plaintiff's suit. Shri P.S. Das, appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants submits that when acknowledgment of the promissory note (Ex. P-2) was under dispute, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to examine the hand-writing expert. According to Shri Das plaintiff's failure to examine the hand writing expert makes the promissory note doubtful and on the basis of the same plaintiff s suit ought not to have been decreed. According to Shri Das deceased Ratanlal being illiterate; heavy burden lay on the plaintiff to prove that he put his signature on the promissory not after being fully apprised of its contents and implications. In support of his submission Shri Das has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hazarilal v. Gyasi Ram and another, 1975 JLJ 50. My attention has been drawn to the following passage of the said judgment : "In the case of ignorant and illiterate defendant heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he affixed his thumb mark on a document after being fully apprised of its contents and implications. The burden has not been discharged in his case and the claim of the plaintiff has not been satisfactorily, established." It is relevant here to state that the plaintiff has examined witnesses who have stated about the execution of the promissory note by deceased Ratanlal and on consideration of the same lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff has discharged his onus and has been able to prove execution of the promissory note. Hence I do not find any merit in this submission of Shri Das and the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. Hence I do not find any merit in this submission of Shri Das and the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. Shri Das contends that when the execution of the document was denied by the defendants it was incombent upon the plaintiff to examine the hand writing expert. It is not a rule of law that whenever execution of the document is denied by the defendant, hand writing expert is required to be examined. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Here in the present case, due execution of the document has been proved by the plaintiff by production of oral evidence. This has been accepted by the lower appellate Court. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the failure to examine the hand writing expert to prove hand writing of deceased Ratanlal on the promissory note (Ex. P-2) is not fetal. Substantial question of law framed is, thus, answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.