THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.1421 of 2010 Date of Order: 04-03-2011 Between: Kilaru Jogindra Narayana Prasad ..Appellant and Dr.Yalamachili Lakshmi Madhavi ..Respondent The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.1421 of 2010 Oral Judgment: The unsuccessful defendant in the courts below filed this Second Appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of A.S.No.226 of 2007 by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada dated 05-07-2010 confirming the judgment and decree of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada made in O.S.No.793 of 2005, dated 22-06-2007. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,72,900/- said to be due basing on two promissory notes— Ex.A1 and A7, dated 28-06-1995 and 09-09-1999 respectively stating that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 28-06-1995 for his business expenditure by executing a promissory note—Ex.A1 on the same day with his own handwriting while promising to repay the borrowed amount with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Subsequently the defendant paid an amount of Rs.7,200/- on 28-06-1996; Rs.7,200/- on 28-06-1997; Rs.7,200/- on 28-06-1998; Rs.7,200/- on 28-06-1999 and an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 20-06-2002 and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory note. Similarly, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 09-09-1999 by executing promissory note—Ex.A7 and paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- on 03-09-2002 and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice—Ex.A9, dated 18-06-2005 to the defendant demanding to pay the entire amount due as agreed. The defendant having received the notice not replied for the same, but filed a written statement stating that earlier plaintiff filed O.S.No.73 of 2005 and O.S.No.601 of 2005 against him on the file of I and II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada respectively and O.S.Nos.598 & 652 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit documents were brought into existence after perusing the defence of the defendant in the written statements in the above suits. Therefore, the present suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC. The friends and relatives of the defendant used to deposit their amounts voluntarily with the defendant for getting higher interest. The plaintiff is one of such depositors. Except the above said transaction the defendant never executed any promissory note. The transaction with the plaintiff had commenced since 1996. The defendant paid the amounts to the plaintiff, which is borne out from the record. When the defendant decided not to entertain any further deposits, the plaintiff bore grudge and filed the above suit. The plaintiff taken the assistance of the defendant in securing job in a Medical College, as the defendant is Joint Secretary of the Institution and later the plaintiff was removed from service. As the defendant did not help the plaintiff for reinstatement of the job, she fabricated his signature on the suit documents. Necessary issues were settled on the above pleadings. In order to substantiate the plea, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 apart from marking Exs.A1 to A10. The defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked. The trial court after considering the said documents decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which has been confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Against which the present Second Appeal has been filed. The plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1. Exs.A1 is the pronote, dated 28-06-1995; Exs.A2 to A6 are the part payment endorsements of Ex.A1 pronote; Ex.A7 is the pronote, dated 09-09-1999; Ex.A8 is the part payment pf Ex.A7 pronote. She specifically stated in her evidence that endorsements were written by the defendant and in the cross- examination also she explained Exs.A1 to A8 i.e. promissory notes and the part payment endorsements were in the handwritings of the defendant himself. There is no cross-examination challenging the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the writings on Exs.A1 to A8 are not belonging to the defendant except making a suggestion that she fabricated Exs.A1 and A7 and other endorsements, which is denied by P.W.1. When the plaintiff specifically pleaded that promissory note and part payment endorsements are scribed by the defendant, the defendant did not deny the said plea in the written statement. If that be the case, burden lies on the defendant to prove that the handwritings on Ex.A1 to A8 are not of him. In fact, defendant pleaded that he already paid the amount to the plaintiff which itself shows that he has not seriously disputed the correctness of the documents produced by the plaintiff. The defendant relied upon Ex.B1. During the cross-examination he stated that he is maintaining original ledger books and books of accounts and Ex.B1 was prepared by his clerk, in such a case it is for him to produce the entries of the ledger books to substantiate his case which he failed to do so. In view of the same, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court is on appreciation of evidence, which do not give rise to question of law, much less substantial question of law, to admit the Second Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 04-03-2011 Murthy