HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 836 OF 2011 . DATED 6TH September, 2011. BETWEEN Gubbala Rama Rao …Petitioner And Reddy & Reddy Imports & Exports, Rep. by its Managing Partner Ramakrishna Reddy Bhimavaram. ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 836 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, is filed aggrieved be the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2011 whereby the learned III Additional District Judge, Fact Track Court, Bhimavaram, dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.124 of 2007 preferred by the appellant/defendant confirming the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2007 in O.S.No.2003 filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, who decreed the suit for recovery of the amount Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant. Perused the case file. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the Ex.A.1 promissory note was executed by the appellant/defendant. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 categorically established the same. The appellant/defendant admitted his signatures on the suit pronote as per his written statement and the same were obtained on the blank promissory notes. It is the case of the defendant that the same was fabricated as Ex.A.1. To rebut the execution thereof, the appellant/defendant did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. When it was the case of the appellant/defendant that Ex.A.1 was a fabricated document, in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who deposed on the aspect of borrowing of the suit amount by the appellant/defendant and execution of Ex.A.1 in their presence, the burden lies on the appellant/defendant to disprove the execution of Ex.A.1 In the absence of adducing any evidence, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court rightly held that the appellant/defendant failed to disprove the execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration thereunder. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record as well as the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, I see no question of law, much less a substantial question of law involved in the second appeal so as to call for interference by this Court with the judgment under appeal in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 6TH SEPTEMBER,2011. Msnro