THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1166 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.898 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.89,700/- on the basis of a promissory note, dated 02.02.2002. He pleaded that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the promissory note, but did not repay the same in spite of demand and legal notice. The appellant filed a written statement opposing case. He stated that he never borrowed the amount from the respondent and that the latter did not make any demand. According to him, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was borrowed by him long back and two promissory notes 10,000/- each were executed on the same day. It was alleged that the respondent took thumb impressions on two unfilled promissory notes towards security and though the amount together with interest was paid in the year 2001, he did not return those documents. In addition to the said amount, the appellant is said to have given tobacco worth Rs.4,500/- to the respondent. The appellant has taken a further plea that the date on the promissory note is tampered. Through judgment, dated 17.10.2006, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent filed A.S.No.188 of 2006 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was allowed on 14.10.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent was for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the suit pro-note is true and valid? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? (3) Whether the suit is barred for limitation? On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and the document was subjected to opinion by expert. The expert was examined as C.W.1 and the report was taken on record as Ex.C1. The appellant did not dispute his thumb impression on Ex.A1, promissory note. The principal contention was that it was a blank promissory note containing his thumb impression and was utilized for the said transaction. He has also alleged that the date on the promissory note was altered. The plea as to alteration does not go in consonance with the plea of non-execution at all. In case he is serious about the plea as to the alteration of the date on the promissory note, it has to be presumed that he admitted the execution thereon. The third issue framed by the trial Court is almost irrelevant, since the suit was filed within the limitation, whether one takes the altered or unaltered dates mentioned in Ex.A1 into account. It is true that there is an alteration in the date, particularly the year and month. The question is as to when the alternation has taken place. One aspect, which needs to be kept in mind, is that the transaction appears to have taken place in February. By that time, any individual would be accustomed to write the previous year and if it is in the beginning of month, the figures pertaining to the earlier month are prone to be written. It is in this context that the month and year on Ex.A1 was altered. The possibility to assume that the figures were altered after the execution is ruled out. The date was written in words also and there is no alteration in the words. Therefore, though a report in Ex.C1 discloses that there was alternation, which in fact is there, it has taken place at the time of execution of the document itself. The lower appellate Court has taken this aspect and the finding does not warrant any interference. The learned counsel for the appellant submits this his client was borrowing amounts from the respondent from time to time and taking advantage of the same, heavy interest is levied. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the decree is confined to Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The second appeal is allowed to the limited extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.12.2011. kdl