THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 506 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2010 made in A.S.No. 29 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 462 of 2002 passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam dated 07.03.2007. Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note that was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant-appellant herein filed an appeal A.S.No. 29 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge and the learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial court. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “PW-1 is the plaintiff and PWs 2 and 3 are the attestor and scribe and they have specifically stated about the defendant borrowing Rs. 1,00,000/- and execution of the pronote Ex. A- 1. In the cross-examination, there is not much material to discredit their statements. Furthermore, from the own showing of the defendant, he is in the habit of borrowing money from the plaintiff, and as such the lending of the money by the defendant from the plaintiff, is not in doubt. Merely because the pronote is executed at Visakhapatnam, it doesn’t rise any suspicion about the truthfulness, even if for a moment the claim of he defendant that the plaintiff was not staying in Visakhapatnam is to be accepted.” Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present Second Appeal. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 1,72,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a from the date of the decree till realization on Rs. 1,00,000/- being the principal amount due under the suit promissory note. On appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Therefore, in my opinion the trial court has considered the matter objectively and decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the appellate 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: 18.06.2010 KA