The High Court · 2025

...AppellanUAppellanUDefendant ... RespondenURespondent /Plai ntiff lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Judgment & Decree dt. 03.06.2024 passed in A.S. No. 12 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nirmal in confirming the Judgment and decree dt.06.01.2022 passed in O.S. No. 85 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, pending disposal of the above Second Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P Pandu Ranga Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL No.7 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 03.06.2024 in AS No 12 of 2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nirmal confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.01 2022 in O S No.85 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirma!

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that respondenUplaintiff filed a suit vide O S.No.B5 of 2014 for recovery of money based on the promissory note, which was said to have been executed by the appellant/ciefendant on 03.01 2012, for the amount availed in December, 2007. The trial Court, considering the evidence placed by both the parties, partly decreed the -suit. Aggrieved thereby, defendant preferred an appeal i.e., A.S.No.12 of 2022. On reconsideration, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Thus, the second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contested the appeal on two grounds i.e., though the Courts below observed that there was over writing of the nurnerical digit 'zero' in the promis$ry a: 2 NI'R,J sA it\t.= <1 2025 note, it had erred in positively considering the plaintiff's case and dismissing the contest of material alteration. ln addition, the pleading as to denial of execution of the promissory note and the suit was filed beyond limitation were disregarded

4. A perusal of the record goes to show that the Courts below though noted that in the numerical of the amount Rs.5,00,000/- the digit'zero'was over written, noneiheless, having regard to the fact that the amount mentioned in words is clear without any interpolation, declined the contention and accepted the respondenVplaintiff's claim

5. The other aspect is that though execution of suit promissory note was categorically denied, the same has not been considered by the Courts below. On this aspect, the record is disclosing that except pleading in the written statement and in the oral evidence, for the reasons best known to the appellanVdefendant, no steps were taken to forward the disputed document for expert opinion or to prove her contention in any other mode. Thus, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment that the appellanUdefendant failed to rebut the presumption is found justifiable \,1.R,.t \i.1 .\o - ol 2025

6. As regards to the limitation in filing the suit, the promissory note dated 03.01 .2012 and the suit is filed in the year 2014, which is within three years from the date of promissory note as prescribed under Arlicle 24 of lhe Schedule to the Limitation Act, . 1963, Therefore, even this ground fails on merit.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, ilris Court finds no tenable ground much less any substantiar questron of raw arising for consideration in this second appeal. As such, the second appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applicalions if any, stands closed SBili}+?t'.t5"# ,/ ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge' Nirmal (with Records'if any) i. ft" s""'t Civil Judrre Nirmal 3 one cc to Sri P P'"i;'R;il; Reddv' Advocate toPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies ADr(PsL (* l -ii i I a.a, t_.. w ','f,; HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ,J l 20flAY m5 1:;l ]. ,: l ,i^ 2 DRAFT JUDGMENT+DECREE SA.No.7 of 2025 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS t 1-, .tr IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, IHE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 7 OF 2025 Between: Banka Susheela, Wo Sahadev, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.'1-3-540, Near Maremma Temple, Nirmal, District Nirmal. ...AppellanUAppellanUDefendant AND Vadlakonda Alivelu, Wo Venkatapathi, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Housewife R/o H.No. 1'-3-215, Shastrinagar, Nirmal. ...RespondenURespondent /Pla intiff Appeal under section '100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 0310612024 made in A.S. No.12 ol 2022 on the file of the Court of thb Principal District Judge, Nirmal preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.85 of 2014 dated 06/0'112022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civit Judge, Nirmal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Pandu Ranga Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Second Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. Thal there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Nirmal 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal 3. Two CD Copies ADl</pst flA- i HIGH GOURT DATED:0710112025 DECREE SA.No.7 of 2025 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS @,H',