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
LNA, J
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.
LNA, J
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.
LNA, J
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
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
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
