THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.680 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below filed this second appeal against the judgment dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District, dismissing A.S.No.3 of 2009 which was filed by the defendant against the judgment dated 21.01.2009 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam, decreeing O.S.No.89 of 2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.86,033/- based on a promissory note. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him to discharge sundry debt. Accordingly, the defendant executed promissory note dated 10.03.2004 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. However, when the plaintiff demanded payment of debt, the defendant failed to repay the same. Therefore, after issuing legal notice, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff since he has no necessity to borrow any amount and that the suit promissory note was a forged and fabricated document. To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 i.e., promissory note, legal notice and returned postal cover. In defence, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, disbelieved the evidence of the defendant and believing the evidence of the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the suit promissory note is a genuine document and that the defendant is liable to discharge the suit debt with interest. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit for the amount claimed with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the presentation of the suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant preferred A.S.No.3 of 2009. The lower appellate Court, considering all the aspects in a detailed manner, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal suit. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and having perused 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 C.P.C. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 06th August, 2010 GHN