HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
SECOND APPEAL No.77 of 2021
JUDGMENT:-
The unsuccessful defendant filed the present second
appeal aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 03.06.2019
passed in A.S.No.42 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District
Judge, Markapur, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed
the appeal confirming the decree and judgment dated
01.11.2016
passed in O.S.No.174 of 2011 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.174 of 2011.
3. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.80,000/- on the basis of promissory note, dated 14.09.2008 executed by the defendant agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum. Since the defendant failed to repay the amount, legal notice, dated 10.06.2011 i.e. Ex.A2 was issued to the defendant. The defendant received the same and issued reply notice with false allegations. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed written statement and contended that he neither borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor he executed promissory note and there are no contacts between him and the plaintiff. He further pleaded that suit promissory note is forged one. Eventually, he prayed to dismissed the suit. 2
5. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined one of the attestors as well as scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note as PWs2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the defendant, he himself is examined as DW1 and he got examined DW2. Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
6. The defendant having pleaded forgery, filed I.A.No.249 of 2013 to send Ex.A1, promissory note to expert for comparison of his signature on Ex.A1. Expert sent opinion/report, however said opinion/report was not marked. Court below observed that the opinion of hand writing expert went against defendant. Having pleaded that the signature appearing on Ex.A1 is forged one, the defendant could not substantiate the said plea. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence of PWs1 to 3 and Ex.A1, decreed the suit by judgment, dated 01.11.2016.
7. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2016 on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur.
8. The lower appellate Court being final fact finding Court framed necessary points for consideration and after considering both oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal.
9. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below the above second appeal is filed.
10. Heard Sri Siva Sankara Rao Borra, learned counsel for the appellant.
3
11. Learned counsel would contend that the both the Courts did not consider the evidence on record properly and no consideration was passed under Ex A.1 Both the Courts failed to consider admissions made by P.W.1 to P.W.3.
12. Suit is filed for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note executed by appellant/defendant. Having pleaded forgery and got the document examined by hand writing expert since report went against the appellant, he could not get the report marked. Evidence of PWs1 to 3 with regard to lending of amount and execution of promissory note is consistent. Nothing contra was elicited during their cross examination. Courts below after considering oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, recorded findings that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is consistent and nothing contra was elicited in their cross-examination. The findings recorded by the Courts below are basing on the evidence and do not call for interference of this Court under Section 100 CPC. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed
13. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.03.2022 IKN 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL No.77 of 2019 24.03.2022 IKN