IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 313 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AS.159/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.162/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: AYSHA JAYACHANDRAN, PARAYAKKADU HOUSE, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI SRI.N.JOHN SAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: S.R.SREEKUMAR, MAYURAM, KARUKAYIL WARD, SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) SRI.P.GOPAL THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 313 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No.162/02 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha assailing the correctness of the concurrent decree passed against her for realisation of money on the basis of a promissory note. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit promissory note had not been executed by her and that no amount is due from her, although contended that she had given a paper signed on revenue stamp affixed thereon to the brother of the respondent. But, when the matter came up for trial, the contention was found to be false, as in the pro note there were altogether four signatures of the respondent and the brother of the respondent produced the paper and a cheque signed by the appellant, which the appellant had given to the brother of the respondent. 2. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court and I am RSA 313/08 2 convinced that both the courts below have discussed and considered in the proper perspective the contentions of the parties threadbare. The execution of the pro note also was properly proved by the attesting witness and no infirmity can be said to exist in the concurrent findings of the courts below. At best, on the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellant what requires to be had in this Regular Second Appeal is a further re-appraisal of the evidence in the case by this Court, which is not expected to be done in a second appeal, except when there is any substantial question of law. In the instant case, there is no question of law at all arising for consideration and much less, any substantial question of law as attempted to be formulated in the appeal memorandum. In the result, I dismiss this Regular Second Appeal in limine, refusing admission. 6th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv