THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.1166 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.08.2010, passed in A.S.No.41 of 2009 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 11.11.2008, passed in O.S.No.341 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. Respondent herein filed O.S.No.341 of 2004 against the appellant-defendant, for recovery of Rs.1,59,000/- based on the foot of a promissory notice. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, decreed the suit holding that the suit promissory note was duly supported by consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.41 of 2009 before the VIII Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 3 . A perusal of the judgment under appeal discloses that the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and by marking Ex.A.1 promissory note and the admissions of the defendant and by virtue of the presumption drawn under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, clearly established that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 02.02.2002 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note and failed to repay the debt due under the said promissory note and as such the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit debt from the defendant, and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit, and same has been rightly confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 4. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 6. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:12.11.2010 va