JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 07.06.2000, in O.S. No. 159 of 1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,98,531.75 paise being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 25.08.1996 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- and for costs. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 159 of 1999, are as under: The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.1996 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same, on demand, with interest at 24% per annum. But inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount and the plaintiff came to know that the defendant with dishonest intention to default creditors attempting to sell away his properties. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The defendant's father breathed last on 20.01.1990 and for the last 42 years the defendant is resident of Gajuwaka and doing a petty business and infact he had no necessity or occasion to borrow huge sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had never entertained any idea of alienating the properties and the present suit is vexatiously filed by the plaintiff for getting the properties attached by ex parte order and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the suit pronote is true and validly executed by the defendant? (ii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 were marked. 8. (ii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 07.06.2000, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Ms.Aasritha, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared for the respondent. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on behalf of appellant before this Court, the following point would arise for determination: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit and whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 11. Point : The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.08.1996 for his business purpose and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 24% p.a. and inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the same and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 12. It is the case of the defendant that Ex.A1 suit pronote is a forged one and the defendant has no necessity to borrow that huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he is running a small flour mill in Gajuwaka for the last 6 years and he has no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the signature on the alleged suit pronote is a forged one. 13. The suit is filed based on Ex.A1 promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant. 13. The suit is filed based on Ex.A1 promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant. The appellant in the case on hand is denying Ex.A1 suit transaction and the appellant pleaded that the suit pronote is a forged one and it is not supported by consideration, since the appellant has taken a plea of forgery in the written statement itself, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 pronote is a genuine and the suit pronote is supported by consideration. 14. To discharge his burden, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW3. PW1 is the plaintiff in the suit. PW2 is the one of the attestor in Ex.A1 pronote, PW3 is the scribe of the suit pronote. PW1 deposed in his evidence about the borrowing of Rs.2,00,000/- by the defendant on 25.08.1996 and also execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The borrowing of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of attestor and scribe is narrated by the plaintiff in his evidence as PW1. In cross examination, the evidence of PW1 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. It was suggested to PW1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant. As seen from the pleadings taken by the defendant in the written statement, there is no pleading in the written statement that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend much money. 15. PW2 is one of the attestor of the suit promissory note, PW3 is the scribe of the suit promissory note. Both the witnesses PW2 and PW3 narrated in their evidence about the passing of consideration under Ex.A1 promissory note from the plaintiff to the defendant and also execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 further goes to show that in their presence the consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant signed on the suit pronote. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with PW2 and PW3 and that they deposed falsehood against the defendant. No such enmity was attributed to PW2 and PW3 in the cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with PW2 and PW3 and that they deposed falsehood against the defendant. No such enmity was attributed to PW2 and PW3 in the cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that PW2 is one of the attestor in the pronote and another attestor is brought by the defendant to the plaintiff for borrowing money but the defendant failed to examine the another attestor who signed on Ex.A1 promissory note as attestor to prove his defense. As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is consistent and cogent with regard to borrowing of Rs.2,00,000/- by the defendant and execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also passing of consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff discharged his burden by examining one of the attestor in the pronote as PW2 and also examining the scribe of the pronote as PW3. 16. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined himself as DW1. He reiterated his stand taken by him in the written statement in his evidence in chief examination. As stated supra, the appellant is disputing his signature on Ex.A1 pronote and also disputing about the passing of consideration. The plaintiff to discharge his burden examined one of the attestor of the pronote and scribe of pronote as PW2 and PW3 respectively. As noticed supra, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 clearly proves about the execution of Ex.A1 pronote. To disprove the evidence produced by the plaintiff, except examining himself as DW1, no other evidence is adduced by the defendant. The appellant relied on Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 i.e., signatures of the appellant in the written statement, Vakalath, Court suit summons, out of order petition, copy of petition and affidavit in I.A. No.550 of 1998, copy of counter affidavit in I.A. No.520 of 1998, copy of I.A. No.520 of 1998. Those are relates to subsequent to the institution of the suit, therefore, no importance can be given to Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. The trial Court compared the signature on the pronote with Ex.C8 i.e., summons sent to the defendant through registered post. Those are relates to subsequent to the institution of the suit, therefore, no importance can be given to Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. The trial Court compared the signature on the pronote with Ex.C8 i.e., summons sent to the defendant through registered post. The trial Court by comparing the signature on the pronote with that of Ex.C8 and came to conclusion that the signature on Ex.A1 pronote and the signature of the defendant on Ex.C8 appears to be one. Both parties did not take steps to compare the signatures on Ex.A1 with admitted signatures by sending the same to the expert. Under law, it is always open for the Court to compare the signature on the disputed document with the admitted signatures of the defendant and witnesses. The Rule of prudence and caution requires that in the first place, expert opinion should be obtained for assistance, if such an opinion is not available, the Court has to compare the disputed writings and come to its conclusion. 17. Section 73 of evidence Act expressly enable the Court to compare the disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether the writing is that of a person by whom it purports to have been written. Both parties have not opted for comparison of the signatures by the hand writing expert. The appellant has not disputing his signature on Ex.C8, therefore, the trial Court has compared the signature of suit summons with that of signature available on Ex.A1 promissory note and came to conclusion that the suit pronote is a genuine one and suit pronote bears the signature of the defendant. 18. The Apex Court in Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1979 INSC 248 : AIR 1980 SC 531 observed that "the duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is not an expert". It is thus clear from the above observation of the Apex Court that under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court can compare the disputed and admitted hand writings or signature to come to its own conclusion. However, the provisions of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act have been interpreted by various courts as to how the signatures or hand writings are to be compared when there is no assistance from the expert. However, the provisions of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act have been interpreted by various courts as to how the signatures or hand writings are to be compared when there is no assistance from the expert. In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge compared the signature on the pronote with the signature of the defendant on Ex.C8 and came to conclusion that the suit pronote is genuine one. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence on record clearly proves about the execution of Ex.A1 pronote and passing of consideration, but to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge his burden to examine any other witness before the Court except examining himself as DW1. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff fabricated the suit pronote. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled the suit claim and on appreciation of entire evidence on record the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the suit pronote is genuine one and the plaintiff is entitled the suit claim. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trial court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. The point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 07.06.2000, in O.S. No.159 of 1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.