IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1059 of 2010 Between: Vallabudasu Yellamma ... APPELLANT a n d Nagulavancha Venkateshwar Rao … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01-06-2010 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant confirming the judgment dated 18-02-2008 passed in O.S.No.27 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal. 2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.27 of 2007. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.91,000/- basing on the pro-note dated 15-02- 2005 for Rs.60,000/- executed by the defendant. 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- on 15-02-2005 and executed a pro-note promising to repay the same. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the amount due under the pro-note. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.91,000/-. 4. The defendant filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant took the plea that her husband borrowed some amount from one Gone Sanjeeva Rao of Huzurnagar and the said Sanjeeva Rao obtained signatures of her and her husband on blank pro-notes and the suit pro-note is one of such blank pro-note. 5. The trial Court basing on the pleadings of the parties settled the following issues: 1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? 2. Whether the suit pronote is came into existence in the circumstances pleaded by the defendant ? 3. To what relief ? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as PW-1 and examined scribe of Ex.A-1 suit pro-note as PW-2 and one of the attestors of A-1 pro-note as PW-3. The defendant did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate her plea. 7. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit pronote is true and valid and thereby proceeded to decree the suit by judgment dated 18-03-2008. 8. The defendant filed A.S.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, assailing the judgment and decree dated 18-03-2008 passed in O.S.No.27 of 2007. The lower appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence brought on record did not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment dated 01-06-2010. Hence, the second appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the appellant/ defendant to adduce evidence on her behalf and therefore, judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. 11. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the defendant did not choose to adduce evidence on her behalf. The defendant having taken the plea that the plaintiff fabricated A-1 suit pronote making use of blank pro-notes signed by her, failed to substantiate the same either by examining herself as witness or any one on her behalf. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to decree the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2007. The lower appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence brought on record did nit find any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. No substantial questions of law are involved in this Second Appeal warranting admission. 12. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J October 26, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1059 of 2010 October 26, 2010