During the course of triar v. Babu, who is one of the attestors of suit promissory note was examined as

...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff' IANO:1OE 2025 Petition under Section 5 o[ Linitation Act r/w' Sec'151 CPC praying f rled in support of the petition' ttre High ;;;; ; iit-g tn" present second Appeal' circumstances stated in ttt" "ftia^"t be pleased to condone tn" olil'l' "i that in the Court maY IANO:2OF 2025 ", petition under section 151 cpc praying, that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suPPort :lJ# t"i'J;' it'""H'en to'-" *ur El;:';i;,#iL1l pro.""dings in Pursuance of the ludgment d Rdditio"ul District Judge' Khammam irr,t bv learned J,ag", run1ii'^i()*t t"* atlf,,1oo1zon paised bv learncd 'ri confirming the iu<igment i:':;;;;:^i"'zzztzoti Senior Civil Juag", fnurn'ilt' pending disposal of rnain appeal' Counsel for the Appeltant: Sri M V Venu' Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P Rama Sharana Sharma' The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALTSHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.3 4 of 2025 JUDGMENT: The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.0g.2024, passed by the Judge Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge ar Khammam in AS. No.42 of 2023, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2023 passed by rhe prl. Senior Civil Judge, at Khammam, in O.S.No.223 of 2016 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is defendant; respondent is plaintilfin the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the pafties are rclerrcd to as thev are arrayed in the suit. 3. Heard Sri M.Venu, leamed counsel tbr the appellant. 4. The factual matrix of the case in nut_shell. which ted to filing of the present Second Appeal. is rhat plaintiff and the delendant are acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant approacliecl the plainrift.and bonowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- tbr his fhnril,,_ nece ssities on

02.01 .2015 and executed a demand prornissory note, promising to lepay the said amount with interest (tl}4oh y:cr annurn as and when I 2 LNA, J S.A.No.34 of 2025 demanded; that the plaintiff demanded the defendant foi repayment of the loan amount, however' the defendant faited to repay the same contrary to promise and therefore' plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount' 5. Defendant filed written statement and denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendant did not borrow any amount at any point of time and therefore' there is no question of execution of promissory note dated 02'0t'2015 by him in favour of the plaintiff and that there is no cause of action arise for hling the suit and that promissory note is forged' fabricated' created for the purpose of filing ol suit; that det-endant obtained hand loan and executed registered moftgage deed dated 04'11'2013 vide document No.506t/20 13 in f'avour oi the ptaintiff and that the defendant requested the ptaintillto clear the said mortgage amount' However, the plaintiff kept silent and tjled the suit by suppressing the real facts.

6. Basing on the pleadings ol'both the pa(ies' the following issues were fiamed by the trial Court tbr trial: " t. Whether the sttit prot'lissorv nole binding on tlrc clefendttnr'? is true. valid and 3 LNA, J S.A.No.31 of 2025 I I : l

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit annut with interest as prayed for?

3. To what relieJ? " 7 ' During the course of triar, plaintiff himserf was examined as P.W. I and one V. Babu, who is one of the attestors of suit promissory note was examined as p.W.2 and got marked Ex.A. I on his behalf. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself examined as D.W. I and no documents were marked on his behall.

8. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.202i. l-he trial Court while decreeing the suit made the following observations: _ " 10. The plaintiff provecl the execution o/. the strit promissory note under Ex.A I by examinecl one o./. the ollestor of the suit promissory not? un(lct. Ex .1. L PW.2/V. Babu, who supported rhe ver-tiort o.f. P.W. l/Nanabala Kiran, clearly esrablis.hed rhctt the suit transaction took place under ex.A t. On the olher hand, the defendanr faitert to elicit crdversc version in the evidence of p lIr l/Nanabctlrt Kit.an and PI42/V. Babu, in order to disprove tlrc contention of the plaintiff, llence. rhe evidence tlf P.W. l/Nanabala Kiran anct p.W.2/l' Babu c.oupled 4 LNA, J S.A.No.j4 of 2025 with the documents under Ex A' I is sufficiertt to prove that the suit promissory note is not forged and fabricated document, but it is true' valid and genuine document supported by consideration and the same is binding on the defendant' As such' the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount with interest from the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with interest to the plaintiff "

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred AS' No'42 ol 2023 on the file of Judge, Famity Court-cum-lV Additional District Judge at Khammam. The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeat, vide judgment and decree dated 2|.oS.2024andconfirmedthejudgmentpassedbythetrialCourt. In the impugned judgment' the tirst Appetlate Couft made th€ following observations : " 16- The defendant No l as D.W' t has admitted the acquaintance betuteen ltint antl P W I 'fron the childhood, who haiLs /rom the sante village' lt was also admitted by D W I in his crrtss examination that he had been borrowing the omounts ./iom P W I and repaying the same to hint- D.l4/ l also admitted his signature on Ex.A I antl relying on the said admission only. lhe triol courl has dismissed tlrc l-A' No. 01/2023 to send tlte stit tlocmnent to tl'te F S L. !!WrF.-- ':" .:1 :? :7 a 5 LNA, J S.A.No34 of ZLZ| to get the opinion of the experl. Therefore, the trial court on considering the material available on record, hos come to a conclusion that the defendant himself signed on the pronote_Ex.A l, after borrowing Rs l 0, 00, 000/- from the plaint iff on 02. 0 t. 2 0 I 5.. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submir that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court decreed the suit without properly appreciatlng the fact that except filing Ex.A. I promissory note no other material is placed by the respondent/appellant on record. The leamed counsel would further submit that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court failed to appreciate the lact that thc respondent/plaintiff has not placed income rax returns of the relevant pcriod in proof of advancing money to the appellant/ def'endant and therefore, ought to have dismissed the suit. I l. Learned counsel for the appellant would subrnit that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have not considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in proper perspccti'u,e and came to erroneous conclusions.

12. A perusal of record discloses that the trial Court as well as thc lilst Appellate Court basing on the evidence of- pWs. I and l. 6 LNA, J S.A.No.31 of2025 \ who is attestor of Promlssory note have categorically held that appellant/defendant borrowed the amount and executed promissory note/ Ex.A.l in favour of respondent/ptaintiff' Both the Courts observed that though the appellant/defendant contended that he has executed mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff at the time of taking hand [oan, the same was not placed on record'

13. First appellate Court specifically observed that the appellant/ defendant disputed Ex'A'l promissory note and his signature on the said document and filed an application in I'A' No' t of 2023 to sendthedocumenttoFsLforexpertopinionandtheSamewas dismissed by trial Court' However' appetlant/delendant did not take any further steps to challenge the same and thus came to conclusion that no material was placed by appellant/defendant to disprove the suit transaction '

14. [n considered opinion of this Courr' the learrrcd counsel fbr the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeat' In tact' all the grounds raised in this appeat are lactual in nature and do not 7 LNA, J S.A.No.3t of 2025 qualiS/ as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

15. It is u'eil settled principre by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation ol'the oral and documentary evidence on record.

16. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakit, theApex 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 Section 100 C.p.C. is very limited and it can be exercised onlv where a substan tial q uestion of law is raised and falls fbr consideration

17. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findi.gs re'corded by the trial court as werl as the first Appellate CoLrrt, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interlcrence wirh the said findings, under Section 100 C.p.C. Moreover, thc grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature | (2007) L Supreme Court Cases 546 8 LNA, J S.A.No.31 o12025 'I and no quest;on of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal.

18. 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. l/TRTJECOPY// Sd,.T. VIJAY KUMAR EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTIONOFFICER To,

2. 3 4 5 JCK/gh r#;'y,ti.-$fi trl:lstrictrudgeatKhammam Tffi '#?.'.",,,,:1tsi1#'J*f d" Li' ;'s;i I'!v v"l1 *Tffii::Xfl *ate ropUCl one CC to Sri P.Rama Shar Trvo CD CoPies' HIGHCOURT DATED:29/04/2025 JUDGMENT: SA.No.34 of 2025 :_:'- J l^. 14: l<" 2 g ttlB 2$5 * o S p,{\T Cttr:o ($'( l ( .} Dismissing the S.A. at the admission stage, without costs.