THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.794 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.532 of 2002 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the respondent, for recovery of amount, on the basis of promissory note, dated 26.12.1999, marked as Ex.A.1. The respondent opposed the suit by filing a written statement. He pleaded that he did not execute Ex.A.1 and it is a forged document. Through its judgment dated 28.02.2006, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellant filed A.S.No.46 of 2006 in the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was dismissed on 13.04.2009. Hence, this Second Appeal. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have placed total reliance upon Ex.C.1-Report, submitted by the Expert and did not make any effort to compare the signatures. He contends that the deposition of the respondent is at variance with the contents of the written statement. Learned counsel submits that, substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. The suit was filed based upon a promissory note, marked as Ex.A.1. The respondent took a specific plea that he did not borrow any amount from the appellant at all. The trial Court framed the following two issues for its consideration, a) “whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? b) whether the suit promissory note is a forged one?” The appellant deposed as PW.1 and the alleged scribe of the document was examined as PW.2. The documentary evidence comprised of only Ex.A.1. On behalf of respondent, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were filed. The opinion given by the Expert was taken on record as Ex.C.1. The trial Court answered both the issues against the appellant. In the appeal preferred against the decree, the lower Appellate Court undertook discussion almost on the same lines and dismissed the appeal. In view of the specific denial, as to the execution of the promissory note by the respondent, the trial Court has examined the matter with reference to the opinion of the Expert. In Ex.C.1, it was categorically mentioned that the revenue stamps containing the signature of the respondent were lifted from another document and pasted on Ex.A.1. This view was further fortified by observing that the connecting lines were drawn by a different person and the slant was totally different. In addition to this the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have pointed out the clear discrepancy as to the scribe of the document. While the contents of Ex.A.1 are to the effect that the respondent himself has written it, PW.2 stated that he wrote the document. This serious discrepancy would certainly belie the case of the appellant. No substantial question of law arises for consideration and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15.12.2010. GJ