IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 9 9 0 OF 1999. Between: Natasimha Reddy … Appellant- Defendant V/s. A. Valipi Venkataramana …. Respondent-Plaintiff Counsel for the appellant : Sri C. Sreemovas Counsel for the respondent : Sri R. Subba Rao The court made the Following : Judgment (follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 9 9 0 OF 1999 JUDGMENT : This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02-08-1999 passed in A.S.No. 108 of 1993 by the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor district, reversing the judgment and decree dated 02-09-1993 passed in OS.No. 23 of 1993 by the learned First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (defendant). None appears for the respondent (plaintiff). 3. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,696-00 alleging that the appellant was a supervisor under a contract or/and he was engaged in the construction of buildings in Mogasalamarri and Bayyapappagaripalle Revenue villages. The respondent used to supply materials required for construction and the appellant had requested the respondent to pay the amount to the mason and coolies on his behalf and had undertaken to settle the accounts. According to the respondent, they were maintaining accounts, the accounts were perused on 23-05-1988 and it was found that the appellant fell due of Rs.9,569-00 to the appellant and the same was also mentioned on a slip written by the appellant. 4. It is submitted that the appellant inspite of repeated demands did not settle the accounts and pay the amount, which was due to the respondent. On that the respondent, got issued a legal notice dated 26-12-1989 calling upon him to pay the amount of Rs.9,569-00 together with interest @ 12% p.a. for which the appellant got issued reply notice dated 22-1-1990 with false allegations. Subsequently the respondent instituted suit for recovery of money of Rs.12,696-00. 5. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it is stated that he had engaged the respondent for supplying material for construction of the buildings but in the capacity of a clerk of Rangaiah Naidu and Srihari Reddy, who are the contractors. However, in the additional written statement he contended specifically that the respondent had paid Rs.3,000-00 for supply of bricks from Gurramkonda and in spite of receiving the said amount, the respondent had not supplied the bricks. 6. Before the learned trial Court, the respondent-plaintiff examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-3 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. On behalf of the appellant-defendant, DW-1 was examined and no documents were marked. 7. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit filed by the respondent mainly on the ground that Ex.A-1 calculation slip basing on which the suit was filed against the appellant and also the documentary evidence of respondent that initially the respondent contended that Ex.A-1 calculation slip is in his handwriting and it is signed by the appellant. But PW-2 the witness examined on behalf of the respondent stating that he scribed Ex.A-1 calculation slip wherein the appellant signed. 8. The learned first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and taking into consideration the material facts borne out from the record and the pleadings of the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 9. The appellant admitted that the handwriting in Ex.X-2 is his handwriting, which is marked Ex.X-2. According to the respondent Ex.A-1 was prepared basing on the entries in Ex.X-2 and Ex.A-1 will be in the handwriting of appellant. The appellant engaged the respondent for the purpose of supplying material for construction work. In Ex.A-1 it is written that an amount of Rs.9,559/- is due. But the appellant stated in his evidence that it is not in his handwriting. As per the contents of the reply notice Ex.A-3 sent by the appellant and the contents of his written statement filed before the trial Court and his admission that he paid Rs.3,000/- for supply of bricks to the respondent revealed that there were transactions between both relating to the supply of material by the respondent. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is to the effect that Ex.A-1 was prepared on the basis of Ex.X-2 and the appellant specifically admitted that Ex.X2 is in his handwriting. 10. The learned first appellate Court held that Ex.A-1 reflects transaction between both the parties. The amount of Rs.9,569/- was written in Ex.X2, which denotes the respondent owed the said amount to the appellant. Considering the entire evidence adduced on either side more particularly the admissions made by the appellant, the learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for by allowing the appeal. 11. It is not the contention of the defendant that because of any enmity, false claim was laid against him. The trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no evidence to show that Ex.A-1 was written by the appellant and Ex.A-1 does not contain the signature of the appellant. But whereas the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court holding that in Ex.A3 it was admitted that the appellant had engaged the respondent for supply of material for the construction of the building. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate Court is final and unless it is perverse or is not based on evidence on record, this Court will not interfere with the said findings. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure will entertain the second appeal only when no substantial question of law is involved for construction. In the present case, absolutely there is no substantial question of law involved for consideration. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the first appellate Court cannot be upset in this second appeal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the first appellate court and the second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 18-03-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 9 9 0 OF 1999 CIRCULATION No. Date:18-03-2011 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43