P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. A. Razaaq, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners-defendants and also Mrs. Sahina khan, learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court to assist the Court. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes court Act by the defendants against the judgment and decree of Small Cause Suit No. 40 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, nuzvid, Krishna District, dated 19. 10. 2000. ( 3 ) THE respondent in the revision petition is the plaintiff. For the purpose of convenience, the parties may be referred to as arrayed in the Court below i. e. , the plaintiff and defendants. ( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that on 29. 1. 1995, the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff for agricultural expenses and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and inspite of several demands, the defendants did not repay the amount and on 12. 5. 1997, the plaintiff issued a notice. The office copy was marked as Ex. A1. The defendants received the notice and issued a reply notice to the plaintiff on 19. 5. 1997, which was marked as Ex. A2 and office copy of the same was marked as Ex. B1. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that after issuing notice, he kept the promissory note in the eves of his hut in a small wooden box and subsequent thereto, there was a cyclone and the said box was lost in the cyclone and hence, he could not trace the box or the promissory note. Hence, he had instituted the suit with an indemnity bond. ( 5 ) THE defence taken by the defendants is one of total denial. It is the specific stand of the defendants that there was no such promissory note and the so-called names of scribe and attestors had been mentioned only to lay a claim and to build up a story as to the promissory note was lost and as if there was a promissory note in existence. It was also further pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such an amount of Rs. It was also further pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and there was no necessity for the defendants to approach the plaintiff at all. The plea of heavy rain on 12. 6. 1996 at Musunuru Village was also denied. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as pw1 and a village elder was examined as pw2. On behalf of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined. DW1 and DW3 being the defendants in the suit and DW2 one prakasharao is the Assistant Statistical officer, Musunuru Village. ( 7 ) THE Court below on appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and also dws. 1 to 3 and Exs. Al and A2 and Exs. B1 and B2 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have filed the present revision petition. ( 8 ) SRI S. A. Razaaq, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners- defendants had strenuously contended that the suit itself is instituted on the strength of a lost document. The learned Counsel also pointed out several contradictory versions in the pleadings and also in the evidence of pws. l and 2. The learned Counsel had submitted that even the evidence relating to the lost promissory note is very vague and is not believable. The learned counsel had further submitted that neither the scribe nor the attestors of the alleged lost document had been examined and it is also not known whether the said lost document was properly stamped or not. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the light of the specific stand of total denial taken by the defendants, the plaintiff should have proved the suit claim atleast by examining the attestors or the scribe and in the absence of such evidence, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or section 114 of the Indian Evidence act cannot be taken benefit of by the plaintiff. ( 9 ) SMT. Sahina Khan, learned amicus curiae had taken me through the evidence of PWs. l and 2 especially the evidence of PW2 and also the observations made by the Court below relating to the nature of PW2. ( 9 ) SMT. Sahina Khan, learned amicus curiae had taken me through the evidence of PWs. l and 2 especially the evidence of PW2 and also the observations made by the Court below relating to the nature of PW2. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the evidence of PW2, a village elder is a trust-worthy evidence and the Court below had rightly believed the evidence of PW2 and had decreed the suit. The learned Counsel had also drawn my attention relating to the observations made by the Court below to the affect that there is no allegation made against PW1 that he is a person who will be resorting to creation of documents. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that even the evidence of DW2 relating to the aspect of rain on the fateful day supports the case of the plaintiff and the actual quantum of rain on the particular day may not be of much relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Section 118 of the Negotiable instruments Act and also Section 114, illustration-C of the Indian Evidence act, 1872. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff had instituted the suit on an allegation that the promissory note was lost. Order 7, Rule 14 CPC hereinafter referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience reads as follows:" (1) The plaintiff shall endorse on the plaint or annex thereto a list of documents required to be produced or disclosed as hereinbefore provided is this rule. (2) Where the plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. (3) Where the plaintiff relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in the list above referred to showing separately which of the documents are in his possession or power and which are not, which of the documents in his possession or power he has produced with the plaint and which are not so produced. In regard to any such documents which are not produced, the list shall contain a statement of the reason for their non-production and the steps which the plaintiff has taken or will take to produce them or cause their production. "order 7, Rule 16 of the Code dealing with suits on lost negotiable instruments specifics as follows:"where the suit is founded upon a negotiable instrument, and it is proved that the instrument is lost, and an indemnity is given by the plaintiff, to the satisfaction of the court, against the claims of any other person upon such instrument, the Court may pass such decree as it would have passed if the plaintiff had produced the instrument in Court when the plaint was presented, and had at the same time delivered a copy of the instrument to be filed with the plaint. " ( 11 ) IN K. K. Koran v. T. Tarn Bai. AIR 1958 K. er. 124, while dealing with the essential conditions to be satisfied before the Court can pass a decree as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Code it was observed as follows: (1) It must be proved that the instrument sued upon is lost; (2) That the plaintiff has offered to give indemnity to the satisfaction of the Court against possible claims by any person upon the same instrument. ( 12 ) SECTION 81 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 dealing with the delivery of instrument on payment or indemnity in case of loss reads as follows:"any person liable to pay, and called upon by the holder thereof to pay, the amount due on a promissory note; bill of exchange or cheque is before payment entitled to have it shown, and it on payment entitled to have it delivered up, to him, or, if the instrument is lost or cannot be produced, to be indemnified against any further claim thereon against him. " ( 13 ) NOW the question is whether the judgment and decree granted by the Court below in SC No. 40 of 1997 on the strength of both oral and documentary evidence, are made in accordance with law and whether the judgment and decree of the Court below are to be confirmed or liable to be set aside, is the main question. ( 14 ) IT is pertinent to note that there is a specific denial of the very execution and the existence of the promissory note. It is not in dispute that neither the scribe nor the attestors had been examined. The court below in fact, had observed that the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 to prove his claim, had deposed that defendants borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from him about 4 or 5 years ago. He saw the pronote. M. Venkatesu and another attested the pronote. The pronote amount was Rs. 5,000/ -. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there were no attestors to the document. The reasons for not examining the attestors are not forth-coming. DW2, the Assistant statistical Officer at Musunuru Office was examined for the purpose of proving the rain on 12. 6. 1997 and 13. 6. 1997. The Court below by appreciating the evidence of dw2 observed as follows:"in respect of rain as per the evidence of dw2, if there was no rain on 12. 6. 1997 and 13. 6. 1997 the claim of the plaintiff about the lost of the pronote can be suspected. As per the Government record there was recording of rain 27. 6 milli meters on the date, but that rainfall according to DW2 at a height of ankle of man from the ground. But according to the plaintiff at a height of knee from the ground. DW2 admitted that there is a variation of severity of rainfall from village to village and place to place at a time. The rainfall recorded by Statistical department is behind the veterinary hospital at a distance of 15 yards from the M. R. O. Office. The house of the plaintiff is situated at remote place of village in Harizanawada. The house of the plaintiff is a small hut. So there is every possibility of falling down of a small hut due to rains of 27. 6 though there is no severe disturbance to other public, in the main village. So in the rain, the wooden box in the eves of plaintiffs hut was fallen down and washed away in the rains and as plaintiff is an old man, he could not trace the said pronote in the rain water flow. He filed the suit with indemnity bond. So in the rain, the wooden box in the eves of plaintiffs hut was fallen down and washed away in the rains and as plaintiff is an old man, he could not trace the said pronote in the rain water flow. He filed the suit with indemnity bond. So as per the evidence of plaintiff and evidence of DW2, the claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff lost pronote in the rain water can be believed. " ( 15 ) THE Court below had mainly relied on several probabilities in arriving at a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. The evidence of pw2 was given due weight by the Court below on the ground that he is a village elder. It is pertinent to note that the said evidence is not concerned with the disputed transaction at all. Apart from it, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants, even the oral evidence available on record is not satisfactory and it is not trustworthy. It is pertinent to note that there is oath against oath. The plaintiff as PW1 and also defendants as DW1 and dw3 had been examined and in view of the specific stand taken by the defendants denying the very transaction, the evidence of the attestors and the scribe assumes importance. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had proved the transaction in accordance with law. Smt. Sahina Khan, learned amicus curiae no doubt had placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the Official Receiver-, Kanpur v. Abdul shakoor, AIR 1965 SC 920 , with a view to support her contention relating to the aspect of presumption and also the special rule of evidence available in the case of a negotiable instrument. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that on the evidence of PWs. l and 2 alone, the plaintiff is entitled to as, decree since in my considered opinion, the plaintiff had failed to prove the lost document in accordance with law. ( 16 ) HENCE, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and decree made in sc No. 40 of 1997 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Nuzived is not made in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. ( 16 ) HENCE, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and decree made in sc No. 40 of 1997 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Nuzived is not made in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. ( 17 ) HENCE, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and decree made in SC No. 40 of 1997 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Nuzived is set aside. The revision petition is allowed with costs. ( 18 ) THIS Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Smt. Sahina Khan, learned amicus curiae, appointed in this matter by the Court to assist the Court.