HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.516 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2009, passed in A.S.No.49 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 17.08.2006, passed in O.S.No.50 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,29,100/- from the defendants, who executed the promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As the defendants did not repay that amount, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to them. Having received the same, the defendants failed to repay the amount. Hence, the suit. The first defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant, stating that he has not borrowed the amount from the plaintiff; that prior to the execution of the pronote, the defendants agreed to sell their lands to one Narayana and therefore, the plaintiff got angry and filed the present suit. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: - “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount? 2. Whether the suit pronote is manipulated? 3. Whether the interest claimed is excessive? 4. To what relief ?” To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W-1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court accepting the evidence of the plaintiff, decreed the suit. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. Now, the point for determination is whether there is any substantial question of law so as to admit the appeal? Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants contended that both the Courts below gave the findings without any evidence and irrelevant evidence has been taken into consideration and hence, he prays to set aside the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record and there are no grounds in the appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment. Filing of the Second Appeal is not a matter of routine or course. The appellant has to formulate a substantial question of law. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon any evidence on record or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence was over looked by both the Courts below for the purpose of arriving at a particular decision. The contention of the defendants is that both the Courts below took into consideration the irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and came to a wrong conclusion and as such, there was mis-appreciation of the evidence. The suit is based upon a promissory note. Therefore, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to show that the promissory note was executed by the defendants and supported by consideration. To establish the same, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. P.W-1 has categorically stated that defendants 1 and 2 borrowed the amount and executed Ex.A-1-promissory note on 01.07.2000 after receiving the sum mentioned therein. When the defendants failed to repay the same, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A-2-legal notice to them and that, under ExA-3, the notice has been received by the defendants. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-1 to discredit his testimony. P.W-2 is the attestor of the pronote. He has categorically stated that after receiving the consideration, both the defendants signed on the pronote. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is very clear that the defendants executed the promissory note after receiving the consideration from the plaintiff and that is the reason why both the Courts below placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The defendant No.1 got himself examined as D.W-1. He simply denied his signature on the suit promissory note-Ex.A-1. He admitted that he received the legal notice issued by the plaintiff and he did not give any reply to the same. Except taking a bald plea that they did not sign on the suit promissory note, the defendants have not taken any steps to get their signatures on the promissory note to be sent to an expert along with their admitted signatures for the purpose of comparison and opinion. Therefore, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on appeal. As no substantial question of law is raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the question of admitting the Second Appeal does not arise. The appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants stated that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court, half of the decretal amount together with costs has been deposited by the appellants and prays to grant some reasonable time to pay the remaining decretal amount. Accordingly, the appellants-defendants are granted three months time to pay the remaining decretal amount, to be paid in three equal monthly instalments, failing which, the plaintiff can execute the decree. On such deposit, the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th July 2011 DR