JUDGMENT A.V Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment, dated 28.04.2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada ('Additional Senior Civil Judge' for short), whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,76,000/- basing on the promissory note, dated 08.12.2012 against the defendant, decreed the same for a sum of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. 2. The parties to this Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 08.12.2012 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the promissory note debt, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.377251, dated 02.07.2014 of Canara Bank, Venkateswarapuram Branch, Vijayawada, for Rs.10,00,000/-towards part payment of the promissory note debt by stating that he has sufficient funds in the bank account and requested the plaintiff to present it. Believing the representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff presented the cheque on 02.07.2014 in State Bank of India, Labbipet, Vijayawada and it was returned as 'funds are insufficient'. The plaintiff communicated to the defendant about the factum of dishonour. The defendant rendered himself liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In response to the dishonour of cheque, on 28.07.2014, the plaintiff got issued a statutory notice demanding the defendant to call upon him to repay the cheque amount and the defendant having received the notice, issued a reply, dated 12.08.2014 with false allegations. The defendant rendered himself liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In response to the dishonour of cheque, on 28.07.2014, the plaintiff got issued a statutory notice demanding the defendant to call upon him to repay the cheque amount and the defendant having received the notice, issued a reply, dated 12.08.2014 with false allegations. As the defendant did not choose to comply the demand, the plaintiff filed C.C.No.1071 of 2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, which is pending. The present suit is filed basing on the promissory note for recovery of the amount. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and the contention of the defendant, in brief, is that he borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from one Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao on 13.08.2010 by registering a mortgage deed in favour of him. The document was registered as Document No.4682 of 2010, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. At the time of borrowal, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao took one blank signed promissory note and one blank signed cheque bearing No.377251, drawn on Canara Bank, Venkateswarapuram, Vijayawada. Subsequently, on 09.06.2013, the defendant paid the entire mortgage debt with interest to Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao. Even after receipt of the amount, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao has not come forward to cancel the mortgage deed executed in his favour by the defendant. But, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao filed mortgage suit, O.S.No.63 of 2013, on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for which the defendant filed his written statement and it is coming for trial. He never borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff. He never issued any cheque towards part payment of the alleged debt. Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao with a malafide intention fabricated blank signed promissory note and filed the suit through the plaintiff with false allegations. The defendant does not have any acquaintance with the plaintiff. He did not receive any consideration under the alleged promissory note. The defendant got issued a reply on 12.08.2014 to the notice of the plaintiff. There is no relationship of creditor and debtor between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The defendant does not have any acquaintance with the plaintiff. He did not receive any consideration under the alleged promissory note. The defendant got issued a reply on 12.08.2014 to the notice of the plaintiff. There is no relationship of creditor and debtor between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, forged and binding on the defendant? (2) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for? (4) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 were marked. During cross examination of P.W.2, Ex.B.3 was marked. 7. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge on considering the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, the unsuccessful defendant filed the present Appeal Suit. 8. Insofar as I.A.No.1 of 2023 filed by the appellant is concerned, it is with a prayer to receive the proposed documents in I.A.S.R.No.1555 of 2017 and I.A.S.R.No.1557 of 2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and to consider the same in the appeal. 9. The brief contention of the petitioner/appellant insofar as I.A.No.1 of 2023 is to the effect that he borrowed only Rs.8,00,000/- from Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao under the mortgage deed, dated 13.08.2010 and that Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao obtained his signatures on blank promissory note and blank cheque and that though he (appellant) discharged the entire mortgage debt, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao did not come forward to cancel the registered mortgage deed and to return the blank promissory note and blank cheque and that he filed a false suit in O.S.No.63 of 2014, for which he is contesting and that the so-called Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao used the plaintiff in filing the present false suit. 10. 10. He filed two Interlocutory Applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for production and income tax returns and another Interlocutory Application under Order 11, Rule 14 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff to produce the copies of his income tax returns for the accounting years 201213 to 2015-16. The Court returned those applications on 24.04.2017 giving seven days time, but the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge reserved it for judgment on 24.04.2017 and delivered the judgment on 28.04.2017, though the defendant did not resubmit those applications and the act of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in this regard is illegal and irregular, as such, those applications are being submitted herewith which may be considered. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff during the course of hearing would submit that he is not filing any counter in IA No.1 of 2023, but he is opposing the relief and those applications were filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge to drag the matter and the prayer of the petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2023 is to be rejected. 12. As I.A.No.1 of 2023 is with a prayer to permit the petitioner to adduce additional evidence by considering the returned applications of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, it is taken up along with main appeal for the purpose of hearing. 13. Hence, in deciding the present appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to adduce additional evidence as prayed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in terms of his returned applications in I.A.S.R.No.1555 of 2017 and I.A.S.R.No.1557 of 2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge? (2) Whether the plaintiff before the Additional Senior Civil Judge proved the execution of suit promissory note, dated 08.12.2012 by the defendant in a manner as pleaded and passing of consideration there under? (3) Whether the judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point No.1: 14. Sri A. Bhaskara Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant during the course of hearing would submit insofar I.A.No.1 of 2023 is concerned that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge did not hear the arguments of the defendant and treated the arguments as heard. Point No.1: 14. Sri A. Bhaskara Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant during the course of hearing would submit insofar I.A.No.1 of 2023 is concerned that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge did not hear the arguments of the defendant and treated the arguments as heard. The learned counsel for the defendant before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge on 21.04.2017 filed two I.As., with a prayer to reopen the evidence of plaintiff so as to produce the income tax returns and the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge without any proper reason returned those applications granting seven days time, but without waiting for seven days, delivered the judgment on 28.04.2017. Thus, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to resubmit his applications before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ought to have waited till the stipulated time of seven days was over, but without waiting, the judgment was delivered in an irregular manner. According to the answers spoken by P.W.1 in cross examination, the factum of his lending amount under Ex.A.1 was shown in his income tax returns, but, he did not file income tax returns. If those returns were filed, truth would have come out. Hence, the defendant was compelled to file these two I.As., which were returned by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and without resubmission of it, judgment was delivered. With the above submissions, the learned counsel would further submit that this Court may consider to receive these two applications and the matter may be remanded to the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. 15. The contention of Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel, is that those applications were filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge with a deliberate intention to delay the matter and if there was any urgency, the appellant would have resubmitted the applications immediately and the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge need not wait for a period of one week when the matter was reserved for judgment. He would submit that when the petitioner filed application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to refer the promissory note to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink, it was dismissed and even the said order was confirmed by this Court in CRP and even after that the defendant was not getting ready. He would submit that when the petitioner filed application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to refer the promissory note to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink, it was dismissed and even the said order was confirmed by this Court in CRP and even after that the defendant was not getting ready. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2023 cannot be countenanced. 16. In the light of the facts, this Court has verified the record. There was no dispute that when the matter was coming for arguments of the defendant side after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff's counsel, I.As. were filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge to send the suit promissory note to an expert to ascertain its ink age and those were dismissed. Later, the matter was pending on account of the CRP. Ultimately, as evident from the docket, the CRP was dismissed on merits and the said factum was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge on 21.04.2017, as such, the matter was posted to hear the arguments of the defendant as last chance to 24.04.2017. There is no dispute that as the learned defence counsel did not argue the matter, arguments were treated as heard. There was also no dispute that on 21.04.2017, two I.As. were filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. One was with a prayer to reopen for the case of the plaintiff so as to seek production of documents from P.W.1 and another was to pass orders for production of income tax returns of P.W.1 for the accounting years 2012-13 to 201516. There was no dispute further that on 24.04.2017, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge returned those applications as to how the petitions are maintainable as already in the evidence covered all the aspects regarding the prayer in the petitions at a belated stage. 17. It is to be noted that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge granted time for seven days for resubmission. It does not mean that when the matter was reserved for judgment on 24.04.2017, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge has to wait for resubmission of those applications. When the matter was reserved for judgment, the appellant was supposed to comply the objections made by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge even well before the stipulated time. It does not mean that when the matter was reserved for judgment on 24.04.2017, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge has to wait for resubmission of those applications. When the matter was reserved for judgment, the appellant was supposed to comply the objections made by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge even well before the stipulated time. The appellant could have completed the objections on the very next day because the matter was reserved for judgment already. There is no dispute that on 28.04.2017 the matter was disposed by delivering the judgment after giving notice. It is in this background, now, in the appeal the returned applications are enclosed to I.A.No.1 of 2023 with a prayer to consider the same so as to remand the matter to the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. 18. It is to be noted that it is a fact that those applications filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge were belated one. Already the defendant suffered with an adverse order from the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge when he sought to refer the suit promissory note to an expert so as to ascertain the age of the ink and the matter was pending before this Court for considerable time and ultimately the CRP was dismissed. When the CRP was dismissed and when the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge posted the matter finally to hear the arguments of the defendant side only, at a belated stage those petitions were filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. Considering the same, this Court does not find any irregularities on the part of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in delivering the judgment on 28.04.2017. It appears that if really the appellant/defendant was bonafide enough about his contention before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, he would have filed those applications along with the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely the petitioner is not at all entitled to resubmit the applications before this Court with a prayer to consider the same in the appeal so as to remand the matter to the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. 20. The point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point Nos.2 and 3:- 21. 20. The point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point Nos.2 and 3:- 21. The learned counsel for the appellant insofar as the appeal is concerned, would submit that it is a case where there was no dispute about the signature of the defendant on Ex.A.1, suit promissory note and further on the original of cheque. The defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. He happened to sign on blank promissory note and blank cheque at the instance of one Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao from whom he borrowed Rs.8,00,000/-. Though the defendant executed a registered mortgage deed but on account of the compulsion, he signed Ex.A.1 as well as the cheque. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were interested in the case of the plaintiff. Though the defendant discharged the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao, but he did not come forward to cancel the registered mortgage deed and ultimately he filed a suit falsely in O.S.No.63 of 2013, on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and the defendant is contesting the same. The said Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao through the plaintiff taking advantage of the signature of the defendant on the blank promissory note brought into existence Ex.A.1 and further filed a case under Negotiable Instruments Act. He would submit that the evidence of D.W.1 has support from the evidence of D.W.2, who is his wife and D.W.2 is no other than one of the attestors under Ex.A.1. For obvious reasons, plaintiff did not submit his income tax returns before the Court to show that he shown Ex.A.1 transaction in his income tax returns, as such, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn to the case of the plaintiff. Apart from this, the plaintiff had no capacity to borrow such huge amount. With the above submissions, he would seek to allow the appeal. 22. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would contend insofar as the appeal is concerned that to discharge the burden relating to execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and P.W.2, one of the attestors and P.W.3, the scribe. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. The so-called mortgage deed said to be executed by the defendant in favour of Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao was a registered one. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. The so-called mortgage deed said to be executed by the defendant in favour of Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao was a registered one. When that being so, it is quite improbable that the defendant signed blank promissory note and blank cheque in support of a registered mortgage deed. The learned Senior Counsel would strenuously contend that the case of the defendant that he signed blank promissory note and blank cheque must fall to ground on account of the evidence of D.W.2, who is his wife for the reason that if really Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao obtained a blank signed promissory note and blank cheque from the defendant, he would not have obtained the signature of D.W.2 as one of the attestors knowing fully well that the wife would support the case of her husband. Thus, on this count itself, the contention of the defendant must fall to ground. The non-filing of income tax returns by the plaintiff is not fatal to his case. P.W.1 affirmed in cross examination that he shown this transaction in income tax returns, but he was not called upon to produce the same and it was only at a belated stage defendant filed two applications to delay the matter after dismissal of CRP which were returned by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. In spite of opportunity given, he did not get the arguments advanced, as such, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge treated the arguments as heard. The evidence on record would prove that the plaintiff discharged his burden and the defendant failed to prove contrary. With the above submissions, he would seek to dismiss the appeal. 23. Admittedly, it is a case where the defendant denied the execution of the suit promissory note by him and passing of consideration there under. He did not dispute his signature on Ex.A.1. As evident from Ex.A.1, it contains three signatures. Two signatures were across the revenue stamp and one signature was underneath the revenue stamp. Literally, it speaks that it was a promissory note executed by the defendant having borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.12.2012. The first attestor was Polana Nava Sudha Rani, who was examined as D.W.2, the wife of the defendant. The second attestor was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiff. Literally, it speaks that it was a promissory note executed by the defendant having borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.12.2012. The first attestor was Polana Nava Sudha Rani, who was examined as D.W.2, the wife of the defendant. The second attestor was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiff. The scribe Challagulla Rambabu was examined as P.W.3 on behalf of the plaintiff. 24. P.W.1 in his chief examination affidavit put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings and through his examination Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked. Ex.A.1 was original promissory note, dated 08.12.2012. Ex.A.2 was certified copy of cheque bearing No.377251, dated 02.07.2014. Ex.A.3 was certified copy of cheque return memo, dated 16.07.2014. Ex.A.4 was office copy of legal notice, dated 28.07.2014. Ex.A.5 was copy of reply notice, dated 12.08.2014. The second attestor on Ex.A.1 deposed in support of the case of the plaintiff with regard to the suit promissory note transaction. P.W.3, the scribe of Ex.A.1, supported the case of the plaintiff with reference to the suit transaction. D.W.1, the defendant, adverted to the contents of his written statement in his chief examination affidavit. D.W.2, the wife of D.W.1, supported the case of the defendant by stating that at the instance of Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao, he (D.W.1) signed Ex.A.1 when it was in blank. 25. Therefore, the plaintiff to discharge his burden, examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the defendant to discharge his burden examined D.W.2. When both parties let in their evidence basing on the pleadings, the burden of proof vanishes and it is for the Court to decide as to in whose favour the preponderance of probabilities are weighing. 26. As seen from the cross examination part of P.W.1, he denied the case of the defendant. To test the veracity or otherwise of the evidence of P.W.1, it is pertinent to look into the cross examination part. 27. As seen from the cross examination part of P.W.1, he was called upon by the defendant during cross examination to explain his financial capacity. He testified that he is LIC agent and he is doing real estate. He is working as LIC agent for the last 11 years. Rs.50,000/- is his earning yearly income from LIC. Rs.8,00,000/- is a small amount to him. He knows the defendant since 8 years. He is an income tax assessee for the last 10 years. He testified that he is LIC agent and he is doing real estate. He is working as LIC agent for the last 11 years. Rs.50,000/- is his earning yearly income from LIC. Rs.8,00,000/- is a small amount to him. He knows the defendant since 8 years. He is an income tax assessee for the last 10 years. He is paying income tax. He cannot say how much amount he paid towards tax to the income tax department, unless he perused the record. He has shown the suit promissory note amount in his income tax returns. He denied that he did not show. He explained that the defendant himself brought the scribe and attestors. He does not know them. Recently, he came to know about the scribe and attstors. He can examine them, if necessary. He asked the scribe and attestors that they have to give evidence before the Court. He does not know whether Challagulla Rambabu, the scribe, worked as Accountant in the Society since April, 2012. The second attestor K.V. Ramireddy is an employee. He denied that he got filed the suit by preparing the plaint averments falsely and that scribe and second attestor are working under Vallaiah and taking advantage of his services, he got prepared promissory note and filed the suit. He denied that he is giving false evidence. 28. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the attestor and scribe, there is any amount of consistency in their evidence regarding the time at which they proceeded to the house of P.W.1 at the instance of the defendant. 29. P.W.2 deposed in cross examination that on the date of promissory note, at about 4-00 p.m., he started from his house and went to the house of Rambabu and both of them went to Andhra Bank ATM where they waited for the defendant and his wife and all of them went to the plaintiff's house. Similar answer is there in the evidence of P.W.3, the scribe. According to P.W.3, he started from his house at 4-30 p.m., and reached to Andhra Bank ATM and he and P.W.2 waited there and that the defendant and his wife came there and he, P.W.2 went to the house of plaintiff by bike and the defendant and his wife came to the plaintiff's house by walk. According to P.W.3, he started from his house at 4-30 p.m., and reached to Andhra Bank ATM and he and P.W.2 waited there and that the defendant and his wife came there and he, P.W.2 went to the house of plaintiff by bike and the defendant and his wife came to the plaintiff's house by walk. This type of consistency would not have been there, if the transaction is not true. There is no dispute that the first attestor was no other than the wife of the defendant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 denied that they are deposing false. Absolutely, they have no reason to depose false in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Their evidence corroborates the testimony of P.W.1. 30. Now, this Court has to look into as to whether there is any probability in support of the defence of the defendant. D.W.1 did not dispute his signature on Ex.A.1. As seen from the written statement of the defendant, his contention is that when he borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao, he was compelled to sign blank promissory note and one blank cheque at his instance. Though he discharged it, he did not cancel the mortgage deed and did not return the so-called blank promissory note and blank cheque. There was no pleading in his written statement that his wife was also compelled to sign in blank promissory note. Now, according to the evidence of D.W.2, who was no other than the first attestor and wife of the defendant when her husband happened to borrow a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao, he was asked to sign blank promissory note and further her signatures were also obtained in the place of first attesting witness in Ex.A.1 when it was in blank. 31. It is to be noted that even according to the defendant, he executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao. Thus, the so-called Rs.8,00,000/- borrowed by him from Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao was duly secured debt by virtue of the so-called registered mortgage deed. In such circumstances, it is quite improbable to assume that he was compelled to sign in a blank promissory note and a blank cheque. Thus, the so-called Rs.8,00,000/- borrowed by him from Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao was duly secured debt by virtue of the so-called registered mortgage deed. In such circumstances, it is quite improbable to assume that he was compelled to sign in a blank promissory note and a blank cheque. This defence of the defendant cannot stands to any reason for the reason that if really Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao had any evil intention, he would not have insisted the wife of the defendant i.e., D.W.2 to sign as first attestor when Ex.A.1 was in blank. It is to be noted that no prudent man would invite such a risk. It is quite probable that the wife of the defendant would definitely go in support of the case of the defendant in the event of any suit basing upon the so-called blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque. Thus, the very fact that D.W.2 signed Ex.A.1 can only probabalize a contention that she signed Ex.A.1 knowing fully well the contents of Ex.A.1 after its due execution. The very evidence of D.W.2 that she signed Ex.A.1 when it was in blank condition cannot stands to the test of scrutiny and further cannot stands to the test of probabilities. The evidence of D.W.1 is nothing but improbable in the considered view of this Court. The evidence of D.W.2 was against the contents of Ex.A.1. Apart from this, it was rather improbable act on the part of D.W.2 to sign Ex.A.1 when it was in blank that too at the instance of Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao. The very act alleged against Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao as if he insisted D.W.2 to sign Ex.A.1 in the attestors column is nothing but improbable. When the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1, the evidence of D.W.2 cannot stands to test of scrutiny. 32. It is a fact that P.W.1 stated in cross examination that he shown Ex.A.1 transaction in the income tax returns of the particular year. He denied contra. Throughout trial, the defendant did not contemplate to take any steps so as to give a direction to the plaintiff to produce those documents by filing appropriate application. On the other hand, he filed I.A. to test the age of the ink in Ex.A.1 which was dismissed. He canvassed the matter before this Court by way of CRP and it was also dismissed. On the other hand, he filed I.A. to test the age of the ink in Ex.A.1 which was dismissed. He canvassed the matter before this Court by way of CRP and it was also dismissed. Prior to filing CRP, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. Even after dismissal of the CRP, no arguments are advanced by the defendant. When the matter was coming for advance arguments at a fag end stage, those I.As. were filed which were returned by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. Virtually before hearing the arguments of the plaintiff's counsel by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, the plaintiff was not directed to produce income tax returns. In a suit of the nature, plaintiff can succeed by examining himself as P.W.1 and by examining attestor or the scribe. It was not mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to produce his income tax returns suo-moto or voluntarily. Hence, no adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 in cross examination consistently shows that he had prior acquaintance with the defendant. According to the defendant even he does not know the face of the plaintiff and he failed to probabalize such a contention. The defendant failed to show the nexus between the plaintiff and the so-called Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao. Under the circumstances, Ex.A.1 transaction cannot be connected with Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao according to the evidence available on record. 33. In the considered view of this Court, the evidence on record categorically proves the fact that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.12.2012 under Ex.A.1 and executed a suit promissory note. In the considered view of this Court, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. 34. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 35. I.A.No.1 of 2023 shall also stand dismissed accordingly. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.