ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This civil revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2004 passed in SC No. 62 of 1995, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Jamkhandi, whereby the learned trial judge has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner, a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,000/- based on the pronote said to have been executed by the respondent-defendant on 19-12-1992. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court contending, inter alia, that the learned trial judge erred in dismissing the suit; that the suit could not have been dismissed in the wake of a clear admission by the defendant about the execution of the document; that the defendant having himself admitted signing of the pronote and a presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, the Act], operated in favour of the plaintiff and the learned trial judge should have decreed the suit; that the dismissal of the suit is not tenable in law and the judgment and decree impugned calls for revision and the suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the Court below was that the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs.22,000/- on the date of pronote; that the defendant who had promised to repay the amount on demand had failed to pay the same; that a legal notice had been caused in this regard calling upon the defendant to make good the amount, which was returned by the postal authorities and therefore it became inevitable for the petitioner-plaintiff to file the present suit for recovery of amount. 4. The respondent-defendant on being notified entered appearance through Counsel has filed written statement. 4. The respondent-defendant on being notified entered appearance through Counsel has filed written statement. The defendant’s case was one of total denial stating that the defendant had never executed the pronote dated 19-2-1992 in favour of the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff; that there were no monetary transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant; that that there is no cause of action for the suit; that the plaintiff had stood surety on behalf of the defendant for raising a loan and on that occasion the plaintiff and her husband had taken signatures of the defendant on several blank papers and blank bonds and the plaintiff should have misutilized the same for wrongful gain and in fact they have filed a number of suits against the defendant and his relatives; that certain amounts were, on the other hand, payable by the plaintiff and her husband to the defendant and the defendant on demanding for repayment, the plaintiff with a mala fide intention has instituted the present suit without any cause of action and without justification and therefore was liable to be dismissed. 5. In the context of such pleadings of the parties, the learned trial judge had formed points viz., 1) whether the plaintiff proves due execution of the on demand pronote dated 19-12-1992 for a sum of Rs. 22,000/-; and 2) if so, what order or decree? 6. While the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, examined PW2 - one Srirang Shankar Nivargi, said to be the scribe of tide pronote, and marked the pronote as ExP1, un-served legal notice as ExP2 and a small note book maintained by the plaintiff indicating the money transactions between the parties, as ExP3 and closed her evidence, On behalf of the defendant, the defendant not only entered the witness box and deposed in support of his case, but got marked a good number documents, particularly in the wake of a subsequent suit, which the plaintiff had instituted against the very defendant in OS No. 17 of 1996, also a suit for recovery of money based on pronote of the year 1994 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was also pending at the relevant time before the Court and a certified copy of the said pronote, depositions of the plaintiff and the scribe, who were common for all the pronotes in that suit and the related documents, as ExD1 to D16. 50,000/-, which was also pending at the relevant time before the Court and a certified copy of the said pronote, depositions of the plaintiff and the scribe, who were common for all the pronotes in that suit and the related documents, as ExD1 to D16. The effort was to demonstrate that the plaintiff had instituted several suits for recovery of money from the defendant, all based on pronotes and totally a huge amount even while the plaintiff did not have the financial wherewithal to lend in money in favour of any other person and on the other hand the plaintiff and her husband were themselves in dire need of help and finance and were borrowing from others including banks and the plaintiff’s husband had also sought permission of the Court to sue as indigent person unable to pay Court fee in a suit against some other person. 7. While the plaintiff sought to support her claim in her deposition, PW2 scribe deposed that the defendant had subscribed his signature to ExP1, after it had been written by him as per the instructions of the plaintiff as well as the defendant and had indicated to him that he had received amount mentioned therein. 8. The defendant in his deposition struck to the version as indicated in the written statement; that he working as a lineman in Karnataka Electricity Board, was drawing handsome salary and was not in any dire financial needs compelling him to borrow money from the plaintiff, who was neither in a position to finance money to others nor was one who had financed money to the defendant; that he had not received any money in terms of the pronote; that he had stood surety to a loan transaction availed by the plaintiff and her husband from the urban bank; that at the time when the defendant himself had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from a bank, the plaintiff had stood surety; that the defendant was getting a monthly rent of Rs. 1,00,000/- from a bank, the plaintiff had stood surety; that the defendant was getting a monthly rent of Rs. 1,700/- from the leased portion of the house that he had constructed; that when the defendant had requested the plaintiff to stand surety for availing of the loan from the bank, she had asked him to sign some papers including a blank pronote, she had so obtained the signature of his wife also and when the defendant had repaid the bank loan and demanded for return of the signed papers, the plaintiff while returned only one paper and had apprised him that the other one was stolen; that such returned pronote was for Rs. 25,000/- had been produced before the Court and marked as ExD3; that the plaintiff and her husband were not in good financial position to advance money as claimed by the plaintiff in terms of the pronote, based on which the suits had been filed; that they have themselves in need of moneys; that the pronotes were all sham and made up and therefore the suit has to be dismissed. 9. It is the cross-examination of the plaintiff and the defendant has virtually destroyed the case of the plaintiff and strengthened the case of the defendant. While the learned trial judge found that the deposition of the plaintiff was inconsistent, self-contradictory and containing different versions of the same incident, the deposition of the PW2 scribe was not credit worthy and not believable though he was a professional deed writer, had not supported his version of drawing deeds with reference to the register he was required to be maintained in the course of his profession. On the other hand, the deposition of the defendant and the evidence placed by the defendant with regard to the financial status of the plaintiff probablizes his case that the plaintiff was not financially competent to advance moneys to the defendant, as claimed in the plaint and as indicated in the suit pronote - ExP1 and also the likelihood of no financial transaction between the parties. 10. 10. The learned trial judge, who had occasion to examine such evidence of the parties, while accepted the version of the plaintiff that even if presumption under Section 118 of the Act could have been drawn in favour of the plaintiff for accepting the consideration having passed under the pronote, found that rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendant was strong enough to nullify the presumption and on the other hand to probablize the case of the defendant and therefore dismissed the suit. 11. Appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff, Sri N.R. Kanchi, learned Counsel submits that the trial Court is in error in dismissing the suit without applying the presumption under Section 118 of the Act, particularly as the defendant had admitted his signature on the instrument. It is submitted when once the defendant had admitted his signature, it was incumbent upon the defendant to have proved to the hilt about the non-receipt of consideration, which could have destroyed the presumption and having not done so, the suit ought to have been decreed. Learned Counsel in this regard relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of KPO Moideenkutty Haji v. Pappu Manjooran and Another ( AIR 1996 SC 3356 ): (1996) 8 SCC 586 and Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal ( AIR 1999 SC 1008 : (1999) 3 SCC 35 ) (para 12) and submits that the presumption is in favour of the plaintiff and the learned trial judge could not be shifted the onus back to the plaintiff to get over this from the defendant and that the plaintiff was required to do nothing else or nothing more and therefore the suit should have been decreed. 12. The presumption as it arose under Section 118 of the Act and as noticed and interpreted by the Supreme Court in the above two cases, is one on due execution of a promissory note of which the party has admitted its execution, which when admitted, gives rise to a presumption of consideration having passed; that the presumption is not one of execution itself, but one of consideration having passed under the instrument and no further need on the part of the plaintiff or the party in whose favour the presumption is raised to prove anything further with regard to the consideration. 13. 13. In the present situation, as noticed by the learned trial judge, the defendant denied any transaction nor execution of any promissory note in respect of any transaction and on the other hand pleaded that certain blank papers had been signed, which the plaintiff might have misused. The evidence is consistent with this plea and it does not amount to execution of a demand promissory note as claimed by the plaintiff. Though in this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the evidence of PW2, who, it is claimed, was a witness to the transaction, deposed that the defendant had admitted the receipt of the amount and as per the instructions, pronote was drawn up by him. In his cross-examination, PW2 has while admitted that he had not seen any consideration being passed, but had simply drawn up the instrument etc. Even this deposition is disbelieved by the trial Court that he being professional scribe, had not supported the version with reference to any register that he was required to maintain in the normal course of his work. If the evidence of PW1 falls and that of supporting witness PW2 also is eschewed being not trustworthy, nothing remains in support of the case of the plaintiff that there was an admission of execution of pronote, which can draw a presumption in favour of the plaintiff for passing of consideration. 14. But, the matter did not remain at this. The defendant placed further evidence to disprove the possible lending of money by the plaintiff by demonstrating her financial inability. The learned trial judge found that the financial ability, on the other hand, had not been proved by the plaintiff nor made known to the Court for lending that kind of money, by any other supporting documents. It is in such circumstance, the learned trial judge has concluded that while the presumption even if was available had been more than rebutted by the defendant and therefore the suit has to be dismissed. 15. On an examination of the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the evidence on record, it becomes doubtful as to whether the plaintiff was if able to make good a due execution of the instrument by mere admission if at all was one of signing on a blank paper or blank document and not one for receiving a sum of Rs. 22,000/- and the consistent case of the defendant that he had not received any amount and the plaintiff having failed to prove that consideration did pass and there being no valid admission even to such presumption under Section 118 of the Act, the decision relied upon will not advance the case of the petitioner in the present facts and circumstances. 16. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial judge in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact the learned trial judge has rightly applied the principle of preponderance of probabilities for deciding the case, in the sense that even if the presumption was available in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant was successful in rebutting that presumption on the basis of the rebuttal evidence led by him, acceptability of which is decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. There is nothing wrong or illegal in such inferences and conclusions drawn by the learned trial judge. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly.