THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1031 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit against the appellant/defendant seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the suit promissory note. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment and decree, dated 27-08-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/defendant filed A.S.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The lower appellate court, vide its judgment and decree, dated 08-06-2010, dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed this Second Appeal. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 23-11-2004 and executed a promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum. In spite of several demands made by plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant failed to discharge the promissory note debt and postponed the matter on some pretext or other. Hence, the suit. The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He stated that due to some differences between him and the plaintiff with regard to some electrical work in the plaintiff’s house, the plaintiff with the help of his henchmen kidnapped him on 11.03.2005 and threatened him and coerced him to execute the suit promissory note, and that he filed a complaint before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, who in turn forwarded the complaint to Bapatla Town Police Station and a crime was registered against the plaintiff. He further stated that no consideration was passed to him and that he has no liability to discharge the debt. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs holding that though the defendant pleaded that PW.2 along with PW.1 kidnapped and coerced the defendant to execute the said pronote, however, in the so-called statement given by the defendant in Ex.B1-FIR, the name of PW.2 attestor of Ex.A1-pronote was not at all mentioned, and hence, the version of the defendant that he was kidnapped was itself disbelieved and that the defendant failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of his contention that the pronote was executed by coercion and on the other hand, the plaintiff proved execution of Ex.A-1- pronote. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed A.S.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court holding that the defendant has miserably failed to prove that Ex.A-1-pronote was obtained by coercion or undue influence by the plaintiff with the help of his henchmen and on the other hand, the plaintiff established execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. I am of the opinion that the trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record, rightly decreed the suit with costs. Further, the appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 03-12-2011 Prv