JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, aggrieved by the decree & judgment, dated 17.10.2016, passed in O.S.No.181 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. 2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: (a) The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-from the plaintiff on 09.03.2009 for the purpose of family expenses and clearance of sundry debts and on the very same day, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/-agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum as and when demanded by the plaintiff or his order. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant several times to discharge the pronote debt along with interest, but the defendant kept on postponing the payment on one pretext or the other, though he is having sufficient means to discharge the debt. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,02,400/-on the basis of promissory note, dated 09.03.2009. 4. The defendant filed written statement denying his liability for the suit claim and contending that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor did he execute any promissory note, much less the suit promissory note. He has no necessity to borrow such amount, since he is an employee in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on monthly salary. The plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory note to make wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the defendant, in collusion with the scribe and the attestor. The defendant does not know the plaintiff, the scribe and the attestors of the suit promissory note. 5. Basing the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:- (i) Whether the suit pronote dated 09.03.2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? (iii) To what relief? On behalf of plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW 1 and Dasari Appa Rao was examined as PW2. The promissory note was marked as exhibit A1 on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant himself was examined as DW1. No document was marked on his side. 6. (iii) To what relief? On behalf of plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW 1 and Dasari Appa Rao was examined as PW2. The promissory note was marked as exhibit A1 on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant himself was examined as DW1. No document was marked on his side. 6. After hearing both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.6,02,400/-with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the decree & judgment of the trial Court, the defendant preferred this appeal. 8. While reiterating his pleaded case, the defendant further urged in the grounds of appeal that the trial court ought to have dismissed the suit as the plaintiff could not prove execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration, that the trial Court failed to consider that the appellant, respondent and the attestor are all employees of the Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, and all of them were present at their respective duties in the Steel Plant and the appellant preferred application seeking to summon the Manager of the concerned department of the Steel Plant for production of original Attendance Register, however, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the defendant to reopen his evidence and erroneously proceeded to dispose of the suit, that the trial court having closed the evidence of the defendant, has wrongly observed that there is no evidence produced by the defendant, that the trial Court failed to notice that there is so much variation between the signature on Exhibit A1 and the signature on the vakalat and written statement, and therefore, it ought to have compared the signatures with the assistance of an expert, that the rate of interest granted by the trial Court is exorbitant and irrational, that the reasoning assigned by the trial Court is unjust and improper. 9. 9. Apart from reiterating the contentions raised in the written statement and the grounds of appeal, it is mainly argued that there was no possibility of executing the promissory note at the alleged time, as stated by the witnesses for the plaintiff, since all of them are employees in Steel Plant, and they were on duty at the relevant point of time as per the written information received under the Right to Information Act. In this regard, it was further submitted that the defendant has taken steps before the trial Court to file documentary evidence showing the said fact, by summoning the records and witness, but the petition was dismissed and merely because the order has not been carried in revision, it is not a bar to urge the same ground in the appeal. Whenever the appellant wants to lead additional evidence in the appeal, the procedure contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which enables either parties to the appeal to produce additional evidence shall be followed, but no such step has been taken by the appellant. As such, just because the appellant has taken some steps before the trial Court, but failed, he cannot rely on the said documents which are not part of the record. 10. Since execution of the promissory note and receipt of consideration therein are denied, the plaintiff has examined himself as a witness and the second attestor to the promissory note as PW2 and both of them have consistently deposed about the lending of the money and also execution of the promissory note. No material could be culled out in their cross-examination nor could the defendant establish enmity for PW2 to speak against him. PW2 is related equally to both parties. In the written statement also, the defendant has not stated the reasons and circumstances under which the plaintiff filed the suit based on a forged promissory note, except broadly stating that it was to make wrongful gain to the plaintiff and wrongful loss to the defendant. There is also no evidence as to why a suit has been filed against him with a false plea. 11. Except the oral evidence denying the suit transaction, no other evidence could be brought in by him to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. There is also no evidence as to why a suit has been filed against him with a false plea. 11. Except the oral evidence denying the suit transaction, no other evidence could be brought in by him to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. The manner of proving a disputed signature can be through oral evidence of an eyewitness who has seen signing or has acquaintance with the signature or has been told by the signatory that he signed or with the aid of opinion of an expert. The plaintiff examined attestor. Neither of the parties sought opinion of an expert. In the absence of any such evidence, the Court itself also can compare the signatures and determine the issue. In the present case, except the disputed signature, there are no other admitted signatures of the defendant contemporaneously made during the period of the promissory note. The signatures on the vakalat, written statement or evidence cannot be taken as standard signatures for comparison as there is every likelihood of disguising. 12. Thus, though the plaintiff could discharge the initial burden of proving that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant and consideration therein was passed, the onus shifted to the defendant could not be discharged by him. Therefore, the appellant/defendant could not show any valid reasons to interfere with the findings and the reasons assigned by the trial Court. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.