HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 538 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed in A.S.No. 237 of 2009 by the District Judge, Guntur District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2009 passed in O.S.No. 383 of 2005 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur. Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit viz., O.S.No. 383 of 2005. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 1,99,748/- being the balance amount of principal and interest due on a pro-note dated 20.6.2000 executed in favour of respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff for her family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. As the appellant-defendant has not paid the amount due under the said promissory note in spite of repeated demands and only made a part payment of Rs. 50,000/-towards interest, respondent- plaintiff got issued legal notice on 16.4.2004. But the appellant-defendant refused to receive the same. Hence, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit and the trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,99,748/- with costs and subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-defendant filed an appeal viz., A.S.No. 237 of 2009 before the appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 10.06.2011 KA