JUDGMENT : 1) This is plaintiff's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC arising out of judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 01-B/2014 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 300,000/- against defendants has been dismissed. 2) For convenience plaintiff and defendants are termed as it exists before the trial Court. 3) The plaintiff has filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 300,000/- along with interest against legal representatives of Manoharlal Moolwani namely Bharti Moolwani, Kamal Moolwani, Rekha Moolwani and Sumit Moolwani. It has been contended that plaintiff and Manoharlal Moolwani were known to each other. Since, late Manoharlal has some financial crunch he had requested the plaintiff to provide him financial assistance. He assured him that he will return the entire amount with interest. Considering the circumstances and the fact that they were known to each other, he gave Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.07.2006 to Manoharlal and as a security the Manoharlal handed over a cheque valued Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn in State Bank of India and also written promissory note. But all of a sudden, Manoharlal met an accident and died on 08.08.2006. Thereafter on 27.09.2006 the plaintiff informed about the promissory note with regard to the money transaction taken place between plaintiff and the deceased, and requested for returning the money, but since they have not returned the money, he submitted the cheque in bank on 04.01.2007 for clearance, the said cheque was returned by the bank. He informed about the defaulting of the cheque to defendants No. 1 and 2, but when even then they did not return the money, he filed instant civil suit before learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari for recovery of the amount against the respondents. 4) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint contending that the deceased did not take amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. In fact, the deceased was a member of Becee which the plaintiff was arranging, therefore, he had given cheque to the plaintiff to maintain membership in the Becee. After death of the deceased the plaintiff intends to encash the same. It is further submitted that their father, the deceased was running a bakery and they had never financial crunch. In fact, the deceased was a member of Becee which the plaintiff was arranging, therefore, he had given cheque to the plaintiff to maintain membership in the Becee. After death of the deceased the plaintiff intends to encash the same. It is further submitted that their father, the deceased was running a bakery and they had never financial crunch. It is emphatically denied that the plaintiff has given any information about the money transaction with the deceased. His father expired on 08.01.2006 thereafter the plaintiff has deposited the cheque which is totally illegal and it falls within commission of offence. After death of account holder, the account operation stops immediately. This fact was known to him still he has submitted the cheque which is nothing but fraud against the dead person. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed various false cases for recovery of amount before the courts against other Becee members also namely Ramchand Lalwani, Vasudev Keshwani, Kanhaiyalal Badhwani and Mohan Mandhan and have also kept undated cheques from them. It is further contended that the plaintiff is a money lender but he has no licence/registration, therefore, would pray for dismissal of the suit. 5) Defendants No. 3 and 4 are minors. They have filed separate written statement denying the contentions made in the plaint contending that the facts are not known to them and would pray for dismissal of the suit. 6) The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 10 issues. The defendants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte, therefore, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC on 05.05.2010 for setting aside exparte proceeding. Learned trial Court after recording of the evidence allowed the said application on 01.02.2012. The plaintiff moved an application for amendment in the plaint, which was allowed and the defendants were given liberty to amend their written statement. The plaintiff filed his evidence by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on 14.03.2013 reiterating the same averments made in the plaint. Neither the defendants nor their counsel was present, therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded exparte against the defendants. The plaintiff filed his evidence by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on 14.03.2013 reiterating the same averments made in the plaint. Neither the defendants nor their counsel was present, therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded exparte against the defendants. 7) The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as PW/1 and exhibited documents Cheque as Ex.P/1, receipt given by the deceased as Ex.P/2, Notice to defendants as Ex.P/3, Acknowledgement receipt of notice as Ex.P/4, U.P.C. as Ex.P/5. 8) Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and the materials on record has held that the plaintiff has not been able to establish as to what purpose cheque was given by the deceased. Therefore, issue No. 1 whether the deceased had taken an amount of Rs. 300,000/- as loan for starting business has been decided against the plaintiff. While deciding Issue No. 10 learned trial Court has held that merely on the basis of issuance of cheque it cannot be presumed that the deceased had taken loan, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and accordingly dismissed the suit. 9) Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that in case of money recovery suit it is required for him to prove the promissory note and merely on the basis of the cheque he cannot file the suit, is erroneous finding of the learned trial Court as the suit is very well maintained. It is not required for him to establish for which purpose cheque was given to him by the defendants. It is further contended that the defendants were proceeded ex-parte before the trial Court, therefore, they cannot take defence at this stage that the plaintiff was running Chitfund which is illegal money transaction in absence of any material on record as the appeal is continuation of the civil suit. He would further submit that the trial Court has committed illegality in not giving weightage to Ex.P2 which is a promissory note. Therefore, he would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the record. 10) Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that promissory note has been defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It was given in writing unconditionally and with signature of the maker. Therefore, he would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the record. 10) Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that promissory note has been defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It was given in writing unconditionally and with signature of the maker. Certain amount of money has also been specified, therefore, Ex.P/2, the promissory note should be given due weightage by the learned trial Court. Even there is no rebuttal by the defendants against Ex.P1 and P2. He would further submit that Section 22 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides that the maturity of the promissory note is the date on which it falls due, therefore, learned trial Court has committed illegality in deciding issue No. 1 against the plaintiff. Defendants have not preferred any appeal or cross appeal against ex-parte order, as such, learned trial Court should have allowed the suit. He would rely on the judgment of this Court in case of Sachchanand Mulchand Vs. Meghraj reported in 2006 (2) MPHT Page 20 (CG). Central Bank of India vs. Indiana Cosmetic, 2012 CJ(Chh) 492, judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court Gwalior Bench in Arvind Kumar Chaturvedi vs Allahabad Bank and Others, 2017 CJ(MP) 936. 11) On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that Ex.P2 is not a promissory note as it is not promissory note defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, it should have been on a proper format. The intention is also missing in the Ex.P2. The promissory note has not been proved. Merely exhibition of the document does not mean that its contents are proved. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly not relied upon Ex.P2. He would rely on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya, 1972 (4) SCC 564, judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in Sh. Bal Mukand vs Joint Hindu Family Firm, AIR 1970 P&H 516 and also judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Bachan Singh vs. Ram Awadh, AIR 1949 All 431 . 12) Learned counsel for the defendants would further submit that in the present case admission of the signature is not present because of his death, therefore, it is incumbent upon the part of the plaintiff to prove the signature. 12) Learned counsel for the defendants would further submit that in the present case admission of the signature is not present because of his death, therefore, it is incumbent upon the part of the plaintiff to prove the signature. In absence of such exercise it cannot be said that the contents of the document has been proved. 13) Learned counsel for the defendants would further submit that in the present case neither signature has been proved by the plaintiff nor any expert evidence with regard to truthfulness of the signature has been done, therefore, the learned trial Court has very rightly not considered the promissory note. He would refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tatipamula Nagaraju vs. Pattem Padmavathi, (2011) 4 SCC 726 . 14) Learned counsel for the defendants would further submit that since the plaintiff was running Chitfund which is illegal transaction and not permissible under the law, therefore, this Court cannot come in rescue of the party in illegal transaction. In such cases losses are allowed to lie where it falls and would refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G. Pankajakashi Amma and Others vs. Mathai Mathew, (2004) 12 SCC 83 . 15) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and record of the Court below with utmost satisfaction. 16) From the records, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to substantiate contents of the document, merely self serving statement cannot prove the contents of the document. The plaintiff has not examined any witness to verify the signature. The plaintiff should have taken steps namely :- i) by calling the person in whose presence the document was signed or written; or ii) by calling handwriting expert; or iii) by calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom document has supposed to be signed or written; or iv) by comparing in Court the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signature or writing, or v) any other circumstantial evidence. 17) Any of the above exercise has not been carried out by the plaintiff which is a violation of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and law laid down by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Smt. Rami Bai vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India, AIR 1981 MP 69 at paragraph No. 10 which is as under:- “10......It is Section 67 which would apply. Section 67 does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. Thus, the signatures may be proved in any one or more of following modes :-- (i) By calling the person who signed or wrote a document; (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; (iii) By calling handwriting expert; (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; (v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signature or handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing; (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it; (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person: A signature is also proved to have been made, if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e. g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant; (viii) By other circumstantial evidence.” 18) It is well settled that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence and weakness of the defendant is not a ground to allow the plaintiff's suit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 has held as under:- There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. 19) Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami and another, (2011) 12 SCC 220 has held as under;- 34. It has been further held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of J& K vs. Hindustan Forest Company, 2006 (12) SCC 198 , wherein it was held that the onus is on the plaintiff to positively establish its case on the basis of material available and it cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence to discharge onus. 35. It was still further held by this Court in the matter of Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi, 2008 that it is for the plaintiff to prove his title to the property. This ratio can clearly be made applicable to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was a subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share. When the plaintiff himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale deed which he executed in favour of his own son and nephew by selling the property of a minor of whom he claEven no witness was examined in his support with regard to supply of material. The Appellate Court has considered imed to be legal guardian without permission of the court, it was clearly fit to be set aside by the High Court which the High Court as also the courts below have miserably failed to discharge. 36. The onus was clearly on the plaintiff to positively establish his case on the basis of material available and could not have been allowed by the High Court to rely on the weakness or absence of defence of the defendant/appellant herein to discharge such onus. The Courts below thus have illegally and erroenly failed not to cast this burden on Respondent 1-plaintff by clearly Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 misconstruing the whole case and thus resulted into recording of finding which are wholly perverse and even against the admitted case of the parties. 20) If we consider the present case in the light of the above settled legal positions, it is quite vivid that plaintiff has not been able to prove that Rs. 3,00,000/- was taken by the deceased Manoharlal and any instrument to be declared as promissory note as per Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is not placed on record. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is extracted below:- 4. “Promissory note”.—A “promissory note” is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. Illustrations A signs instruments in the following terms:— (a) “I promise to pay B or order Rs. 500.” (b) ‘‘I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B in Rs. 1,000, to be paid on demand, for value received.” (c) “Mr. B. I.O.U. Rs. 1,000.” (d) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 and all other sums which shall be due to him.” (e) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 first deducting there out any money which he may owe me.” (f) “I promise to pay B Rs. 1,000, to be paid on demand, for value received.” (c) “Mr. B. I.O.U. Rs. 1,000.” (d) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 and all other sums which shall be due to him.” (e) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 first deducting there out any money which he may owe me.” (f) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 seven days after my marriage with C.” (g) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 on D’s death, provided D leaves me enough to pay that sum.” (h) “I promise to pay B Rs. 500 and to deliver to him my black horse on 1st January next.” The instruments respectively marked (a) and (b) are promissory notes. The instruments respectively marked (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are not promissory notes.” 21) It is well settled legal position that a document can be treated as promissory note only when it is promissory both in form and intent and if indebtness is acknowledged in the document that any defined sum of money is payable on demand, then only document can be said to be promissory note. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab in case of Sh. Bal Mukand (supra) has held as under : “3. So the only question for consideration is whether the document in question is or is not a promissory note, or whether it is an acknowledgment? In Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act 26 of 1881), the expression 'promissory note' is defined in this manner--"A 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of. a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument''. Illustration (b) to this section says -- "I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B in Rs. 1,000 to be paid on demand, for value received." It is apparent that if the acknowledgment of indebtedness is in a defined sum of money payable on demand that is enough and the document need not necessarily say that the debtor promises to repay the amount. 1,000 to be paid on demand, for value received." It is apparent that if the acknowledgment of indebtedness is in a defined sum of money payable on demand that is enough and the document need not necessarily say that the debtor promises to repay the amount. Here the document is an instrument in writing, it contains an unconditional undertaking to pay because the payment is to be made under it by the defendants to the plaintiff on demand, which may have proceeded immediately the next moment this document came into existence, it is signed by the maker, and it says clearly that a certain defined sum was to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants under this instrument. It fulfils all the requirements of Section 4 of Act 26 of 1881, and squarely comes within the scope of Illustration (b) to that section.” 22) Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Bachan Singh(supra) has held as under:- “4. The term "promissory note" has been defined in Section 4, Negotiable Instruments Act, as follows: A 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a banknote or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. 5. It is true that the instruments are styled as "pro-notes," but that is merely the description of the instruments; and, in order to find out whether the instruments are promissory notes or not, we must examine their terms. The terms of 'the instruments have been set out above and we do not find therein any conditional or unconditional undertaking by the maker to pay the amounts mentioned therein. 6. In our opinion, there must be an express undertaking to pay the amount mentioned in the instrument before it can be held to be a promissory note, as defined in Section 1, Negotiable Instruments Act. A mere implied undertaking by the use of the word 'debt' or 'proyote' is not sufficient. This is also made clear by illus. (c) appended to Section 4 of the Act, it reads : ''(C) Mr. B, x. O.U. Rs. 1000." This does not amount to a promissory note within the meaning of the term as used in Section 1 of the Act. 7. This is also made clear by illus. (c) appended to Section 4 of the Act, it reads : ''(C) Mr. B, x. O.U. Rs. 1000." This does not amount to a promissory note within the meaning of the term as used in Section 1 of the Act. 7. In Ratan Singh v. Pirbhu Dayal A.I.R. (18) 1931 ALL. 302 the instrument under consideration was in more or less similar terms and, in the absence of any unconditional undertaking to pay the amount mentioned therein, it was held that the instrument could not be considered as a promissory note.” 23) In view of the above stated legal position, it is held that neither Ex.P2 has been proved in accordance with law nor its promissory note as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. From bare perusal of Ex.P/2, it is evident that no features of promissory note is available in Ex.P/2. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference. 24) Accordingly, the first appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Decree be drawn up accordingly.