Telangana High Court
Gurrala Venkanna vs Bandyala Sreenu on 9 February, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
SECOND APPEAL No.203 of 2014
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment dated
25.11.2013 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge
(III-FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabaed, in A.S.No.54 of 2012
confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2011 passed by the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, in O.S.No.159 of 2008. The said
suit was filed by the respondent herein seeking recovery of an
amount of Rs.56,000/- along with interest. By the judgment dated
01.10.2011, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs and future
interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of
filing of the suit, till realization.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgments of both
the Courts.
3. The appellant would contend that he denied execution of suit
promissory note covered under Ex.A.1. He would further contend
that he executed two promissory notes and received an amount of
Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along
with interest and that after repayment, the plaintiff returned only one
promissory note and assert that the second promissory note was
misplaced and thereafter, the plaintiff might have pressed into service
and that both the Courts below (a) misconstrued the defence, (b) not
framed the required point and (c) not applied Order 41 Rule 31 CPC,
and therefore, requested to set aside the judgment in A.S.No.54 of
2012.
4. The appellant herein took the defence of execution of two
promissory notes before the trial Court and later in the evidence he
denied execution and also passing of consideration. He further
deposed that the signature on Ex.A.1 is forged. The plaintiff in the
suit examined the attestor and scribe of the promissory note and the
defendant also examined another attestor of the suit promissory note.
The plaintiff proved execution of promissory note and receipt of the
consideration by the defendant. When once the defendant admitted
execution of promissory note and passing of consideration of
Rs.25,000/-, he cannot again take the plea of forgery on Ex.A.1
contrary to the pleading. As the defendant himself agreed the
signature on Ex.A.1 and considering the other oral evidence on
record, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit for an amount of
Rs.56,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the suit till realization. Even in the appeal, the appellate Court clearly
held that P.W.3 is an independent witness and the plaintiff proved
execution of the promissory note by examining the scribe, attestor
and D.W.2. Another attestor-D.W.2 also admitted that he signed on
the promissory note. The appellate Court also observed that though
the defendant has taken the plea of forgery, he failed to send the
document to the expert for comparison. The appellate Court further
observed that the defendant contended that he executed two
promissory notes on 01.06.1992 and repaid the amount but the
plaintiff returned only one promissory note stating that the other
promissory note was misplaced and created Ex.A.1 with forged
signature. In fact, there are no corrections with regard to the day
month and year in the promissory note, and therefore, it cannot be
said that the promissory note dated 01.06.1992 was converted into a
promissory note dated 22.04.2001 and accordingly confirmed the
judgment of the trial Court. Appellant herein has not given any notice
to the respondent when he returned only one promissory note and
retained other on the ground of misplaced. There are several
inconsistencies in the evidence of appellant and they were
appreciated properly by both the Courts. Given the above facts and
circumstances, the Courts below correctly held that the plaintiff had
proved execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Thus, no error was
committed by the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the
plaintiff had proved his case
5. This Court therefore finds no merit in the second appeal. No
question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for
consideration. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed with
costs.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
dismissed in the light of this final judgment.
____________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J.
9th FEBRUARY, 2022.
PGS
