Telangana High Court
Mohd. Hasnuddin vs Padigala Sangameshwar on 22 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.51 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
Questioning the judgment and decree, dated 20.07.2023,
passed by I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in AS.No.5 of
2020, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated
31.12.2019 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy in
O.S.No.12 of 2015 was confirmed, the present Second Appeal is
filed.
2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the
plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are
referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case which led to filing of the
present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff and the defendant are
well known to each other since long time and due to their
acquaintance, on 04-01-2013 the Plaintiff gave loan of
Rs.2,40,000/- to the defendant and thereafter, the defendant had
issued post-dated cheque bearing No.961435, dated 06-02-2013 in
favour of the Plaintiff and when the same was submitted before the
SBH, Yellareddy Branch for encashment, it was dishonored with
Return memo "No Account/Account closed" and as such, on
LNA, J
01-04-2013, the Plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant
and in spite of receipt of the said notice, the defendant failed to pay
the suit amount. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments
of the plaint except his acquaintance with the plaintiff. He stated
that the plaintiff is running a hardware business at Yellareddy
Mandal since more than 20 years and the defendant used to take
the hardware materials on credit basis as and when required by
him, for which the Plaintiff asked the defendant to give blank
cheques towards security for the said transactions and as such, the
defendant gave a blank cheque to the Plaintiff in the year 2013.
4.1. It was further averred that the Defendant cleared off all
the credit transaction amounts to the Plaintiff and to that effect the
Plaintiff also passed a receipt and the Defendant never borrowed
any amount from the Plaintiff as hand loan and hence, sought to
dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues and
additional issue have been framed:-
"1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
Rs.2,40,000/- with costs from the Defendant as prayed
for?
LNA, J
2. To what relief?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is holding money lending
license?"
6. To substantiate his claim, the Plaintiff got himself examined
as PW-1 and also examined P.W-2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.
Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the
defendant.
7. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary
evidence and the contentions of both the parties, decreed the suit,
vide judgment dated 31.12.2019, by observing as hereunder:-
"It is pertinent to note that, basing on the Ex.A1-Cheque
bearing No.961435, dated 06-02-2013, it clearly shows
that the Plaintiff gave hand loan of Rs.2,40,000/- to the
Defendant and during the cross examination of the DW1,
he himself admitted that his signature bears on Ex.A1
and basing on the Ex.A3, it clearly shows that even after
issuing of the legal notice by the plaintiff, the defendant
failed to repay the cheque amount to the plaintiff. Basing
on the evidence of Pw2, it establishes that both the
parties to the suit are having good acquaintance with
each other and as such, giving of hand loan of
Rs.2,40,000/- by the Plaintiff to the Defendant has taken
place."
LNA, J
8. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact-
finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and the material
available on record and observed that the defendant failed to prove
his prime and foremost contentions of issuance of blank cheque
towards security for the hardware items purchased from the
plaintiff on credit basis and his clearance of all the credit
transaction amounts. It was further observed that the defendant did
not adduce any cogent evidence to prove his case except his self-
testimony and hence, the theory of issuance of blank cheque set up
by him is nothing but to escape the liability under Ex.A-1-original
cheque. It is further observed that the plaintiff proved that the
defendant borrowed hand loan from him to a tune of Rs.2,40,000/-
and failed to discharge the said debt and accordingly, dismissed the
appeal filed by the defendant, vide judgment dated 20.07.2023.
Hence, the Second Appeal.
9. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the appellant.
Perused the record.
10. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts
concurrently held that the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by the plaintiff manifests his entitlement for recovery of the suit
LNA, J
amount which is borrowed by the defendant as hand loan and
accordingly, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
11. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the trial Court
decreed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence and
the first Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that
the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the
evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
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.
15. 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.
16. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date: 22.03.2024
dr
