HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1066 of 2010 Dated: 12-11-2010 Between: Pingali Gopalakrishnaiah …Appellant AND Mylavarapu Suryaprakasa Rao Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1066 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in A.S.No.14 of 2009, dated 24.06.2010, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in O.S.No.63 of 2008, dated 27.07.2009 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff filed for recovery of the amount based on a pronote. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the above suit against the defendant stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 25.3.2002 from him for construction of house and executed the suit promissory note with his own hand writing agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Subsequently, the defendant made part payment of Rs.500/- on 13.3.2005 and endorsed the same on the back of promissory note with his own hand writing. Later, as the defendant failed to repay the amount in spite of the oral demands, the plaintiff got issued legal notice and as there was no response from the defendant, he filed the present suit. Contesting the suit, the defendant stated that he is working as Head Master in West Godavari and that he is having sufficient means to meet the needs and he continued in joint family at Kaza along with his brothers till 2005 and they decided for partition and that disputes arose between the family members and that the plaintiff acted as mediator and asked to execute the suit promissory note to settle the matter amicably. Hence, the defendant executed the suit promissory note with his own hand writing but no attestors were present and no consideration was passed under the promissory note and the part payment endorsement was also made on the same date, but there was no part payment endorsement on 13.3.2005. Hence, the suit is also barred by limitation and the plaintiff did not choose to return the promissory note executed by the plaintiff, but he filed the present suit basing on promissory note and part payment endorsement and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled necessary issues for trial. To substantiate the claim of either parties, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined the attestors of the pronote as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The defendant himself examined as D.W.1 besides examining D.W.2 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ex.A.1-pronote and Ex.A.2-part payment endorsement, dated 13.10.2005 and considering the evidence of D.W.2 who deposed that the defendant had executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff, held that the defendant had executed the suit pronote only after the receipt of consideration thereunder. The plaintiff proved the suit pronote by examining the attestors. Though the defendant pleaded that the suit pronote was executed in connection with family disputes, he failed to prove the same by examining any of the elders who participated in the family disputes of the plaintiff. Holding so, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the appeal. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the appellant across the bar that the application filed by the appellant-defendant before the lower appellate Court in I.A.No.18 of 2010 in A.S.No.14 of 2009 to send Exs.A.1 and A.2 to the hand writing expert for obtaining his opinion with regard to the age of the ink written on Exs.A.1 and A.2 and that the said I.A. has been dismissed against which C.R.P.No.2000 of 2010 is filed and pending before this Court. It is contended that the counsel for the appellant was not heard before the lower appellate Court and that the application in I.A.No.454 of 2010 filed to reopen the appeal and to permit him to advance the arguments was dismissed. This court does not see any merit in the said contentions since the defendant himself admitted the execution of the suit pronote and though pleaded that the same was executed in connection with his family disputes, failed to establish the same by adducing cogent evidence. In view of the same, non-sending of Exs.A.1 and A.2 to the hand writing expert by dismissing I.A.No.18 of 2010 will not vitiate the impugned judgment. The concurrent findings reached by the Courts below are on appreciation of the evidence in proper perspective. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 12, 2010 Tsr.