THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 940 OF 2011 DT.21.10.2011 Between: Marlapati Adinarayana … Appellant And Podila Kotaiah … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narsimha Rao Gudiseva Counsel for respondent : The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 940 OF 2011 ORDER: This appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 dated 28.2.2011 passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur district confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S No. 205 of 2007 dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. The appellant herein is defendant. He suffered a decree for Rs.1,92,600/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of presentation of suit till realization. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed the subject suit based on pronote dated 10.2.2005 marked as Ex.A1. The defendant filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the pronote is rank forged one. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the scribe and attester to pronote as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked documents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. P.W.4 is another attester, who did not turn up to cross examination and his evidence was eschewed. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also adduced the evidence of D.W.2. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 i.e., the plaintiff, the scribe and the attester to the suit pronote held that the plaintiff proved the suit pronote as true, valid and binding on the defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Having aggrieved by the same, the defendant, preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 and the lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 28.2.2011 dismissed the appeal confirming the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record. Thus, both the Courts below, on consideration of the evidence available on record, concurrently held that the plaintiff proved promissory note in Ex.A.1. In the present second appeal, the appellant has not made out any ground to take a different view than the one taken by the Courts below, nor there is any substantial question of law, warranting interference of this Court. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 21.10.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 940 OF 2011 DATE: 21.10.2011