THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1083 of 2010 July 15, 2011 Between: Peddireddy Venkateswarlu, S/o.Ramaswamy And others ... Appellants And Chundru Satyanarayana, S/o.Ramakrishnayya And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1083 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The second respondent (first defendant) is a firm. Appellants (defendants 7, 8 and 10) and respondents 3 to 7 (defendants 2 to 6) are its partners. The first respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,071/- based on a promissory note, Ex.A1, dated 01.4.1991 allegedly executed by the defendants 2 and 3, Managing Partners, of first defendant firm. The firm and defendants 2 to 6 remained ex parte. Defendants 7 and 8 alone contested the suit. They opposed the suit on the ground that necessary parties were not arrayed as defendants, that there was a reconstitution of the firm and that defendants 2 and 3 were not authorized to borrow the money nor they are the Managing Partners. The trial Court framed as many as six issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A13. The attestor of Ex.A1 was examined as P.W.3. The seventh defendant, lone witness, was examined as D.W.1 and he marked Exs.B1 to B3. The trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The appellate Court – the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram; accepted the appeal of the plaintiff being A.S.No.30 of 2007 by judgment dated 05.3.2010. The Counsel for the appellants would submits that the plaintiff instituted the suit in collusion with defendants 2 to 6 to get unlawful gain from the appellants, that defendants 2 and 3 are not authorized to sign the promissory note and that the plaintiff failed to prove execution of the promissory note. The points urged are essentially pertaining to the question of fact. The appellate Court found that execution of promissory note by defendants 2 and 3 was proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and the attestor, P.W.3. Relying on Section 22 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1923, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the execution of promissory note by the partners of the firm not only binds the firm but also the other partners of the firm, and that the contesting defendants did not disprove the existence or continuation of the first defendant firm. The appreciation of the evidence and the application of the principles of law to the facts is sound in the judgment of the appellate Court. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 15, 2011 YS