Judgment :- Kamalammal, petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Original, Suit No. 365 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arnbasamudhram, filed for recovery of the amount on promissory note against the respondent - defendant. The trial Court on consideration of the materials and evidence, oral and documentary, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 04.08.1995. The above judgment has been challenged in this civil revision petition. 2. Mr. Bhiman, learned counsel Appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the finding by the Trial Court that the execution of promissory note by the defendant is not established, is not based on proper reasonings, especially when the demand notice issued by the plaintiff on 03.08.1992 though was received by the defendant, he did not chose to reply for the said notice. The learned counsel further pointed out that when the second issue was framed by the trial Court on the basis of written statement by the defendant to the effect that whether the defendant is entitled for protection under Debt Relief Act, it shall be taken to mean the defendant admitted the execution of promissory note. 3. Though notice was served on the defendant respondent herein, no counsel has entered appearance. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 2,000/- on, 21.09.1989 from the petitioner by executing a promissory note. On 01.03.1992, since the amount was not repaid, the petitioner sent a demand notice to the respondent, who in turn refused to receive it and therefore, the petitioner again sent a notice on 03.08.1992 and the same was received by the respondent on 06.08.1992. Despite receipt of the said notice, the amount was not paid back nor any reply was sent and hence, the petitioner filed the suit. 5. According to the respondent/defendant, he has neither obtained any loan nor executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the promissory note referred to in the plaint is a fabricated document and the signature contained in the said document was not of his and at the instance of his enemies, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff, in order to harass the defendant. 6. 6. The trial Court on considering the evidence, oral and documentary, concluded that the promissory note is a fabricated document and on comparison with the admitted signature, the trial Court found that the signature in the promissory note purported to have been made by the defendant differs from the signature found in the written statement. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the trial Court has failed to take mto consideration two vital aspects: (1) the notice demanding the promissory note amount was not replied; (2) in the written statement, it was pleaded on behalf of the defendant that he is entitled to the protection under Debt Relief Act. The counsel submits that defendant having chosen not to reply to the demand notice and having opted to plead protection under the Debt Relief Act could not make a plea that the signature contained in the promissory note was not of his. 8. This submission, in my view, does not merit acceptance. Factually, in the written statement, there is no such plea urged by the defendant requesting for protection under the Debt Relief Act. Merely on the basis of the averment in the plaint to the effect that the defendant is not entitled to Debt Relief Act, the second issue had been framed by the trial Court to the effect, whether the defendant is entitled for the protection under the Debt Relief Act. Thus, it is clear that the said issue was not based on the written statement filed by the defendant. 9. On the other hand, it is the consistent stand by the defendant that he never obtained any money from the plaintiff nor executed the promissory note which is referred to in the suit. The defendant, who himself examined as DW.1, has been, thoroughly cross-examined and his stand taken in the written statement is fully in consonance with his deposition. 10. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by trial Court, the admitted signature of the defendant contained in written statement and in his deposition would not tally with the signature purported to have been put by the defendant in the promissory note. Mere failure to reply to the notice cannot give rise to the adverse inference in favour of the petitioner, more particularly when the defendant had given explanation in his deposition that because of his illness he could not send reply. 11. Mere failure to reply to the notice cannot give rise to the adverse inference in favour of the petitioner, more particularly when the defendant had given explanation in his deposition that because of his illness he could not send reply. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.