THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1125 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein is the 2nd defendant. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, against the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of the amount due under pronote. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, vide judgment and decree, dated 31-07-2003, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd defendant alone filed A.S.No.150 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The appellate court vide its judgment and decree, dated 18-09-2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed. Heard both the counsel. It is the case of the plaintiff-1st respondent herein that both the defendants had jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from it on 03- 08-1994 by executing a pronote in favour of the plaintiff and received the consideration agreeing to pay the same with interest and the defendants paid some interest on different dates from 10-09-1994 till 28-12-1995 and thereafter, the defendants failed to pay the balance amount. Therefore, after issuing legal notice, the said suit was filed for recovery of the amount due under pronote. A written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant, which was adopted by the 1st defendant. But, subsequently, the 1st defendant remained ex- parte. The 2nd defendant contended that his correct name is P.A.Chandra but not P.V.Chandra as shown in the cause title, that the plaintiff himself forged and fabricated the pronote and he never received the said consideration nor agreed to pay the same with any interest. The 1st defendant is a friend of the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant is running a provisional store at Pakala. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the friendship with the 1st defendant, has forged the signature of the 2nd defendant. Therefore, he requested the court below to dismiss the suit. The trial court framed the following two issues:- (1) Whether the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated one as averred in the written statement? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff-company, its Managing Partner was examined as PW.1 and scribe of the suit pro-note was examined as PW.2. The 2nd defendant himself was examined as DW.1. Both the defendants made a loan application, dated 03-08-1994, which was marked as Ex.A-1, and on the same day, they have executed Ex.A-2 suit pro-note. There is no dispute that some amount was paid towards interest. The 1st defendant, having adopted the written statement of the 2nd defendant, did not choose to contest and remained ex-parte. The 2nd defendant took steps for sending Ex.A-2-suit pronote to the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert submitted a report stating that the second part of the signature on the pronote compared with signatures on vakalat, court summons and amin’s report is not tallying. The trial Judge, having considered the handwriting expert’s report and the contention of the 2nd defendant, came to the conclusion that the execution of the pronote was proved, as the scribe was examined and the 2nd defendant was not able to fully discharge his burden to disprove the averments made by the plaintiff with regard to the forgery and fabrication of the said amount and accordingly, allowed the suit with costs. As against the said judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal and the appellate court on reconsideration of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellate court has not considered any specific points that arise for consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the appellate court is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration. I have perused the material papers. When Ex.A-2-pronote compared with Ex.C-3-vakalat, Ex.C-4-court summons and Ex.C-5 amin’s report, first half of the signature is tallying but there is difference in the second half of the signature. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that he never signed on the pronote and he never executed Ex.A-1 and A-2. But, the lower appellate court recorded a finding that the 2nd defendant signed the loan application Ex.A-1 and also executed Ex.A-2 pro-note along with the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant did not choose to send Ex.A-1-loan application to the handwriting expert. That means, he has admitted his signature on the loan application. When the signatures under Ex.A-1 and A-2 are similar, it cannot be said that Ex.A-2 is a forged document. Further, both the courts below concurrently held that Ex.A-1 and A-2 contain the signature of the 2nd defendant. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I am of the opinion that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 12-03-2010 Prv