THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL NO.1474 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 in A.S.No.65 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Kovvur, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2008 in O.S.No.275 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, was confirmed. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant. The respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed O.S.No.275 of 2004 for recovery of Rs.64,057/- based on a promissory note dated 05.01.2002 with interest at 12 ½% per annum. The defendant filed written statement stating that the suit promissory note dated 05.01.2002 is a created one and that he is a small farmer and he is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Agricultural Debt Relief Act. 3. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues have been framed. (1) Whether the suit pronote is forged one? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 4. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant borrowed the amount covered under Ex.A1 and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.64,057/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization on the principal of Rs.50,000/-. 5. Challenging the same, A.S.No.65 of 2008 is filed. On considering the material available on record, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. After amendment of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for filing a Second Appeal, there must be a substantial question of law involved. No substantial question of law is formulated in the grounds of appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the signature of the defendant was obtained on a white paper affixed with a stamp and therefore, it is not an ‘instrument’ within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the admission made by P.W.1 relates to some other transaction but not with regard to Ex.A1 and that the evidence of P.W.1 is clear with regard to execution of Ex.A1 and that there is no substantial question of law so as to admit the second appeal and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. The suit is based on a promissory note-Ex.A1. P.W.4 is the scribe of Ex.A1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the attestors of Ex.A1. The evidence of P.W.4 would clearly go to show that he scribed Ex.A1 document and the defendant received the consideration covered under Ex.A1 and he did not state that the signature of the defendant was obtained on a white paper. Similarly, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestors of Ex.A1, have also spoken to the effect that the defendant received consideration under Ex.A1. That is the reason why both the Courts below placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, with regard to execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. Once the execution of Ex.A1 was established beyond preponderance of probabilities, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it was not supported by consideration. 9. Except the oral evidence of D.W.1, he has not produced any evidence to substantiate his case. There were no disputes existing between P.W.1 and D.W.1 prior to the transaction in question. When there are no disputes, the question of fabricating Ex.A1 does not arise. Except taking a bald plea that the plaintiff obtained signature on white paper, absolutely there is no evidence to show that D.W.1 has not executed Ex.A1-promissory note. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, both the Courts below gave concurrent findings. The finding on fact is not shown to be contrary to law. Further, the evidence was appreciated by both Courts duly taking note of the admissible evidence. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment impugned. There is no question of law, much less substantial question of law so as to admit the Second Appeal. 9. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court dated 25.03.2011, the appellant has deposited half of the decretal amount along with costs and interest and therefore, some more time can be given to the appellant to pay the remaining half of the decretal amount. Hence, six {6} months time is granted to pay the remaining 50% of the decretal amount with interest and costs, failing which the respondent-plaintiff can execute the decree. Further, it is made clear that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 25.03.2011. 10. Subject to the above, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 29th August 2011 RRB