THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO S.A.No.164 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant – first defendant filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram dated 30.07.2010 dismissing A.S No. 10 of 2006 filed by him confirming the judgment of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota dated 24.03.2005 in O.S No. 19 of 2002 filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.83,000/-. Admittedly, the case of the appellant- first defendant is that he is due only an amount of Rs.23,000/- but the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the appellant- first defendant is liable to pay Rs.83,000/- and in support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the appellate Court at paragraph 15 which is extracted hereunder: It appears, as seen from the observations made by the Court below that if really the defendant paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- he would have filed the relevant receipts in court showing payment. The defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1214 dated 20.07.2010 to receive the payment receipts and it was allowed and the receipts were marked as Exs.B1 to B5 which shows that defendant made payment of Rs.4,000/- on 19.11.1999 vide Ex.B1, on 17.12.1999 he took account Demand Draft for Rs.12,000/- from Karur Vysya Bank, payable to the Plaintiff company, vide Ex.B2. So also on 21.1.2000 he paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- vide Ex.B3 and Rs.12,000/- on 21.2.2000 vide Ex.B4 and an amount of Rs.12,000/- on 16.6.2000 vide Ex.B5. On a careful perusal of Exs.B1 to B5, it appears that the defendant made payment of Rs.52,000/- from time to time. That does not mean to say these amounts were paid to the plaintiff company, besides his payment of Rs.60,000/- already credited to the account of the defendant. Therefore, on a perusal of Exs.B1 to B5, it can be said to some extent that the defendant made some payments. But it does not mean to say that subsequent to filing of the suit he made any payments or they were not taken into account prior to filing of the suit. Thus, on a careful reading of the evidence, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff proved or established their case that the defendant failed to repay the suit amount even after issuance of notice. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. The appellant has not raised any question of law in this appeal. When there is no such question of law raised by the appellant and when the trial Court as well as the appellate Court apprised the facts, this Court cannot go into the facts of the case again by invoking the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. Therefore, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. RAJA ELANGO,J Dt. 11.11.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO S.A.No.164 of 2011 Dt. 11.11.2011