Telangana High Court
Syed Jahangir vs B. Ramesh Reddy Died Per Lr on 22 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.286 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in A.S.No.250 of 2016, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed by the VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.2274 of 2004.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.2274 of 2004 against the appellant/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,39,250/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. It was contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff No.1 on 23.10.2002 as hand loan and executed a demand promissory note and also issued a receipt in favour of the plaintiff No.1 on the same day promising to repay the same along with 2 LNA, J S.A.No.286 of 2023 interest @ 18% per annum within six months. But, the defendant failed to repay the said amount within the time, as promised by him. Despite several requests and demands, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice dated 17.03.2004, to which, the defendant gave a reply on 25.03.2004 denying the claim of the plaintiff No.1. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia stating that he did not receive any money from the plaintiff No.1. The defendant stated that he is an auto rickshaw driver and he is not in need of huge amount and that the plaintiff No.1 fabricated the suit promissory note by forging his signature. Therefore, he filed a criminal case against the plaintiff No.1 vide Crime No.102 of 2004 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B I.P.C and the same is pending.
5. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 3
LNA, J S.A.No.286 of 2023
6. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 died. Therefore, his Legal Representatives were impleaded as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6.
7. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.250 of 2016. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023. Hence, the present second appeal.
8. Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.
9. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs established their case and therefore, they are entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.
4
LNA, J S.A.No.286 of 2023
10. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the trial Court decreed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence and the first Appellate Court erred in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
11. However, learned counsel for appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.
12. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.
13. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the 1 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 5 LNA, J S.A.No.286 of 2023 evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration.
14. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.
15. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 22.01.2024 va