THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU SECOND APPEAL No.648 of 2010 Date: 22.11.2010 Between: Levaku Narayana Reddy …Appellant And Chintakunta Ramachandra Reddy and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU SECOND APPEAL No.648 of 2010 JUDGMENT : This Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10.9.2009, made in A.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.8.2004, made in O.S.No.594 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, decreeing the suit for money. 2. The appellant is defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit O.S.No.594 of 1998. 3. Originally, the 1st plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.594 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note, dated 16.9.1995, executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs.64,000/-. After full fledged trial, the suit was decreed, as prayed for, by judgment and decree, dated 30.8.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st plaintiff died and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The lower appellate, after going through the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that no ground is made out calling for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and as such while confirming the same, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is preferred. 4. A funny substantial question of law is sought to be pressed into service in the second appeal stating that the appellant-defendant filed an application seeking to send the suit document i.e., promissory note for expert opinion, which went against him, but the said expert opinion was not properly marked and this aspect has not been considered by the lower appellate Court. 5. I am of the considered opinion that when once the expert opinion is admissible and that the defendant executed the suit promissory note after obtaining the consideration mentioned therein, marking of the said expert opinion has no significance. There is no question of law, much less substantial, warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. 6. For the foregoing, the second appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 22.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU SECOND APPEAL No.648 of 2010 22.11.2010 (Msr)