THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No : 1160 of 2009 Date:14.12.2009 Between: Telukuntla Narsimha, Nalgonda. And Gattu Narsi Reddy, Vidyanagar Colony, Nalgonda. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No : 1160 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the First Appeal filed by the defendant under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 CPC confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2006 passed in O.S.No.177 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Second Appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.177 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, are:- 3. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.177 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. He filed the suit for recovery of Rs.60,943/- against the defendant basing on two promissory notes. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement disputing his liability. The trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the defendant obtained a loan of Rs.22,000/- on 17.7.1998 with interest @ 12% p.a., and again Rs.31,000/- on 30.08.1998 interest @ 18% p.a., from the plaintiff and executed two separate pro-notes in favour of the plaintiff? 2. To what relief?” The suit ended in decree in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 28.10.2006. Assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.177 of 1999, the defendant filed A.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for framing additional issue. The additional issue is; whether the plaintiff is a money lender as defined in sub-Section 7 of Section 2 and whether he has complied with the provisions of Section 3 and Clause (a) and (b) sub-Section 1 of Section 5 and sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 6 of A.P (Telengana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 fasli? 4. The plaintiff examined three witnesses on his behalf and marked 10 documents on his behalf. On behalf of the defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. It appears that the suit pro-notes were sent to the Director of A.P Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for his expert opinion with regard to the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the suit promissory note. The Director of A.P Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad addressed a letter dated 4.1.2006 expressing his inability to offer any opinion on the available standards. Accordingly, the documents sent for opinion were returned. 5. The learned Junior Civil Judge, basing on the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held that the suit pro-notes are true, and valid and that the defendant failed to prove that plaintiff is not a money lender. With the above findings, the trial Court proceeded to decree the suit by judgment dated 28.10.2009. The defendant filed an appeal being A.S.No.7 of 2002. The lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the First Appeal being A.S.No.3 of 2007 by judgment dated 23.10.2008. The said judgment is assailed in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in right perspective and thereby committed an error in recording the finding that the suit promissory notes are executed by the appellant/defendant and that the respondent/plaintiff is not a money lender. He further submits that it is for the respondent/plaintiff to send the admitted signatures of the appellant/defendant relatable to the year 1998 and as he failed to send the necessary admitted signatures, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him. That the Trial Court ought not have ventured to compare the admitted signatures of the appellant/defendant with the disputed signatures appearing on the suit pro-notes. 7. The plea of the defendant is that the promissory notes are rank of forgery. The plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1. He examined two more witnesses as P.Ws 2 and 3 to prove Exs.A1 and A2. P.W.2 is the scribe of Ex.A2. P.W.3 is the attesting witness of the suit promissory notes, which have been exhibited as Exs.A1 and A2. It appears that the appellant/defendant had not placed on record any admitted signatures relatable to the year 1998 so as to enable the respondent/plaintiff to send them to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison. The appellant/ defendant having failed to furnish the admitted signatures relatable to the year 1998 cannot be permitted to contend that the respondent/plaintiff has not taken any step to send the admitted signatures of the appellant/defendant of the year 1998 for comparison with the disputed signatures appearing in the Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes. It is evident from the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court that the appellant/defendant did not produce any material to show that the respondent/plaintiff is a money lender. The evidence brought on record has been appreciated by the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court in right perspective and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal warranting admissions. 8. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy Date:14.12.2009 mrb