HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2011 Friday, the Eighteenth day of November, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Jujjuri Krishna Prasad Appellant AND Karamsetty Venkateswara Rao Respondent JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant who suffered a decree in O.S. No. 215 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for a sum of Rs.2,36,945/- along with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of realization, by judgment and decree dated 25.3.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned XIII Addl. District Judge, Narasaraopet, in AS No. 36 of 2009, which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The suit was filed based on Ex.A-1 promissory note dated 03.04.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 500/- is said to have been paid under Ex.A-2 dated 20.03.1999. As the suit amount was not paid, the suit was filed before the trial court. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and examined the attestors of Exs. A- 1 and A-2 as PWs 2 and 3 and since PW-4 died after recording part of his evidence, his son was examined as PW-5. The defendant himself was examined as DW-1. The plaintiff was able to prove the execution of the promissory note by the defendant on receipt of the consideration and as such all the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are available and as no rebuttal evidence was adduced in respect of the transaction, the suit was decreed. On re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the lower appellate court has rightly affirmed the findings of the trial court. As part payment was proved by evidence, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation. Having gone through the judgment impugned, I do not find any question of law, muchless substantial question of law. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is permitted to pay the entire decreetal amount in two equal monthly instalments and first of such instalment shall be paid within six weeks from today and the second instalment covering the entire balance decreetal amount, shall be paid within six weeks thereafter. In default of payment of any of the instalments, the decree holder is at liberty to execute the decree as per law. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah November 18, 2011 MAS