THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1037 of 2009 Dated:19.02.2010 Between: Smt.Veeravalli Rose Mary Suseela. …Appellant and Duggirala Venkata Satyanarayana. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1037 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.534 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- based on a promissory note dated 18.06.1999. The appellant opposed the suit contending that she did not execute any promissory note and that suit promissory note is forgery. She denied borrowing the amount from the respondent. The trial Court framed one substantial issue. During the trial, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 promissory note. He also examined two witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, and the defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1. Considering the evidence, the Court below believed the respondent’s version, execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the appellant and decreed the suit. In the appellant’s first appeal being A.S.No.48 of 2006, the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Kovvur, again reconsidered the evidence after framing necessary points for consideration and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court did not give any reasons for holding Ex.A1 promissory note as true and valid and is binding on the appellant. Secondly, he submits that the reasoning of the appellate Court is perverse and is contrary to the principles of law. This Court has perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. It is seen that P.W.1 (plaintiff) proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. This was supported by P.Ws.2 and 3, who, in an unimpeachable manner, deposed that they saw the appellant borrowing the amount and executing the suit promissory note. In a suit promissory note when the defendant alleges forgery the entire burden is on the defendant. In this case appellant did not take any steps like seeking to send the suit promissory note to an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, nor producing rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the criticism of the trial Court’s judgment is not acceptable. First appellate Court again reconsidered the matter with reference to the evidence and correctly came to the conclusion that the respondent proved borrowing the amount and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the appellant. Both the Courts below decided the question of fact with reference to the evidence on record and the question of law does not arise. The Second Appeal is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.02.2010 vs