HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 343 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 29.04.2010 passed in A.S.No. 197 of 2003 on the file of District Judge, Guntur, wherein and whereby, the appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment dated 20.02.2009 passed in O.S.No. 219 of 2007 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Defendants in the Suit are the appellants herein and the respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit O.S.No. 219 of 2007 for recovery of money to a tune of Rs. 2,16,381/-with interest thereon, from the defendants. That suit was decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against D1 charging interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of realization and the suit against D2 and D3 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff in the suit preferred appeal challenging the dismissal of suit against D2 and D3 in O.S. No. 219 of 2007 dated 20.2.2009 and the appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that under the Provisions of Indian Partnership Act, the promissory note Ex. A1 is not only binding on D1 and also binding on D2 and D3 being the partners, whose liability is joint and several. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by the defendants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants contended that the lower appellate Court did not consider the fact that the suit pro-note is defective one and the defendants never executed any promissory note as such it is a fabricated one filed for harassing the defendants as such it is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned decree and judgment dated 20.2.2009 passed in O.S.No. 219 of 2009 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, holding that the promissory note Ex. A1 is not only binding on D1 but also binding on D2 and D3 being the partners, whose liability is joint and several. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal and the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 15.04.2010 KA