THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.302 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2009 passed in A.S. No.50 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2005 passed in O.S No. 79 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Suryapet. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 79 of 2003. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.3,83,960/- basing on Ex.A1-promissory note dated 10.2.1999. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant, who is the Managing Partner of the first defendant- Samrajya Laxmi Parboiled Rice Mill, Komarabanda borrowed a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh on 10.2.1999 and Rs.60,000/- on 11.2.1999 for the development of his business. He executed promissory notes on the respective dates of borrowing promising to repay the same with 30% interest. He made part payment of Rs. 1,000/- on 19.12.2001 towards the pronote dated 10.2.1999. The part payment was endorsed on the promissory note. He also made part payment of Rs.500/- towards the pronote dated 19.2.1999. Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 10.2.1999, Ex.A2 is the promissory note dated 11.2.1999, Ex.A3 is the part payment endorsement dated 19.12.2001 on Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A4 is the part payment endorsement dated 19.12.2001 on Ex.A2 promissory note. According to the plaintiff, he made several demands to the defendants to pay the amount due under the promissory notes. He also got issued a legal notice to the second defendant demanding the amount due under the promissory notes. There being no response from the second defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,83,960/-. The defendants filed the written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded part payments of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21-1- 2002 towards the amount due under pronote dated 11.2.99 and another part payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 5.2.2002 towards the amount due under the promissory notes dated 10.2.99 and 11.2.99. Cash vouchers dated 21.1.2002 and 5.2.2002 have been marked as Exs. B1 and B2. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendants discharged the entire due amount under the two pronotes through cash vouchers ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. 3. Whether the suit is filed within time? 4. To what relief ? On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.B1 & B2. The opinion of the handwriting expert was marked as Ex.C1. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that Exs. B1 and B2, cash vouchers are fabricated and thereby proceeded to decree the suit by judgment dated 31.10.2006. The defendants filed A.S. No. 50 of 2006 assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 passed in O.S. No. 79 of 2003. The lower appellate Court, formulated the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendants is true ? 2. Whether the vouchers are true ? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 4. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court ? 5. To what relief ? The lower appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the appellants-defendants failed to prove Exs.B1 and B2, and, thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment and decree dated 1.10.2009. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court on Ex. B1 and Ex.B2 vouchers, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court, basing on the sole testimony of P.W.2, cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kaveti Sarada vs. Vemineni Hymavathi & Others([1]). The appellants-defendants admitted the execution of Exs. A1 and A2, promissory notes and also the part payment endorsements, which have been exhibited as Exs. A3 and A4. The appellants/defendants pleaded that they made payments under Ex. B1 and B2, cash vouchers, and thereby, discharged the amounts due under the pronotes, which have been exhibited as Exs.A1 and A2. It is the respondent-plaintiff, who got Exs. B1 and B2, cash vouchers examined by the handwriting expert. P.W.2 is the handwriting expert and his report has been marked as Ex.C1. Though the defendants have taken the plea that they have paid the amounts under Exs. B1 and B2, cash vouchers, towards the full discharge of the pronote debts, no effort has been made by them to substantiate it. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, having considered the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the appellants-defendants have failed to substantiate the plea of discharge. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal warranting its admission. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 13th April, 2010 pnb [1] 2006(4) ALT 56