Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Raidu Siva Prasad, vs Kovvuri Suresh, on 13 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.146 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 not 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?
4. Whether the law relating to rebut the
presumption under Section 118 of NI Act
is by showing preponderance of
probabilities and against the plaintiffs
and if so whether the courts below had
not properly applied and interpreted the
legal position and gave a 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.8 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
