Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Raidu Siva Prasad vs Gaddam Srinivasa Rao on 13 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.162 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
13.04.2022 BSB, J
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The suit is filed for recovery of money based
on a promissory note and the defendant took
the defence that the suit promissory note was
signed by the defendant in a different context,
wherein his brother-in-law was running a chit
business and who is one of the attestors to the
suit promissory note and that he signed a blank
signed promissory note and the same was used
to file the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit
and the aggrieved defendant preferred the
appeal, but the same was ended in dismissal.
Having aggrieved by the decree and
judgment in the appeal, the second appeal is
preferred before this Court framing the
following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case admitting the signature by
DW.1 on Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes
would amount to proof of contents of the
document and passing of consideration
thereunder?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case the findings of the first
appellate court below is right or not
perverse as they are contrary to law and
against the material on record?
3. Whether the deliberate negligence and
avoidance of the plaintiff in not examining
one of the attestors by name Yelamanda,
who is completely responsible for creating
the promissory notes by obtaining the blank
promissory notes from the appellant/
defendant would amount to deprive the
appellant/ defendant from cross examining
the witness and elicit the true facts and had
ultimately caused an impact in the result of
the suit? (2006 SAR Criminal 616)
4. Whether the law relating to rebut the
presumption u/s.118 of NI Act is by showing
preponderance of probabilities and against
the plaintiff and if so whether the courts
below had not properly applied and
interpreted the legal position and gave
wrong finding in regard to execution and
proof of the document pertaining to passing
of consideration?
5. Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case the points for consideration
framed by the appellate court below are in
accordance with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC?
6. Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case the first appellate court is right
in confirming the judgment of the lower
court, resting the burden on the appellants?
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit the
appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondent.
Post on 04.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondent through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to stay the operation
of the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2022
passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri,
Guntur District for recovery of money in
A.S.No.9 of 2021.
Notice to respondent.
Post on 04.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondent through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
