JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant's revision petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2011 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Kekri (Ajmer) in Civil Appeal No.12/2005 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kekri in Civil Suit No.56/2001 has been set aside. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- against the defendant on the basis of Ex.1 Tehrir alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Defendant filed written statement wherein the execution and signature on Ex.1 was denied. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following five Issues were framed: " 1- vk;k okn i= ds iSjk la[;k 2 ds vuqlkj fnukad 11-5-1998 dks izfroknh us oknhx.k :0 27]000@& jksdM+h v/kkj ysdj [kkrk rgjhj fd;k\ 2- vk;k oknhx.k cktkj /kkjs ds vuqlkj mDr jkf'k ij C;kt ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 3- vk;k 15-7-1999 dks izfroknh us :0 5]000@& tek [kkrs isVs tek djk;s\ 4- vk;k izfroknh us dksbZ jde m/kkj ugha yh u [kkrk rgjhj fd;k] [kkrk QthZ gS\ 5- vk;k [kkrk fe;kn ckgj gS\ " 5. In support of his case, the plaintiff No.2 Surya Prakash examined himself as PW-1 and further got exhibited Khata as Ex.1. 6. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and produced no documentary evidence. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide order dated 5.5.2005. 8. Against the aforesaid order dated 5.5.2005, the plaintiff-respondent field an appeal. The lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2011 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- with interest @ 12% details of which have been given in the judgment of the appellate court. 9. While deciding Issues No.1 and 4 simultaneously, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the trial court committed an error in not examining the signature of the defendant on the Tehrir Ex.1 with the written statement, statement as well as the Vakalatnama under section 73 of the Evidence Act. The appellate court has examined the signature 'E' to 'H' on Ex.1 and came to the conclusion that on comparison, the signatures are the same, therefore, advancement of the loan is proved. The appellate court has examined the signature 'E' to 'H' on Ex.1 and came to the conclusion that on comparison, the signatures are the same, therefore, advancement of the loan is proved. Issues No.3 and 4 are in contradiction to each other, therefore, both have been decided simultaneously and the finding on Issues No.1 and 4 in favour of the defendant has been set aside and the same were decided in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding Issue No.3, the lower appellate court has also considered the fact that on 15.7.1999 the defendant had deposited Rs. 5,000/- against the original loan of Rs. 27,000/-, therefore, the same remained as Rs. 22,000/-. While deciding Issue No.2, the court below came to the conclusion that the defendant has admitted the market rate of 1.5% per month per Rs. 100/- but still, the Court below has allowed only 12% interest. Ultimately, the appellate court has decreed the suit, as detailed out therein. 10. Submission of counsel for the defendant-petitioner is that the decree could not be passed simply on the basis of comparison of the signature and there must be some other corroborating evidence but no such evidence was produced, therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are liable to be set aside. 11. I have gone through record of the revision petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the defendant-petitioner. 12. This court is of the view that the trial court has committed an error in not comparing the signature of the defendant by invoking power under section 73 of the Evidence Act on Ex.l with the written statement, statement and the Vakalatnama and the appellate court has rightly done this. While deciding Issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiffs, the appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 that the original loan was of Rs. 27,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- has been paid by the defendant on 15.7.1999. Therefore, finding on Issues No.1,2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs has been rightly given by the appellate court and finding on other issues is also given on the basis of the evidence produced before the court below. The appellate court has committed no illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The revision petition has no force and the same is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******