THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 994 of 2010 Dt.23-09-2010 Nagam Ramesh Babu … Appellant Vs Chukka Ayyappa Raju … Respondent JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 06.07.2010 made in A.S.No. 333 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam, confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 28 of 2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili dated 30.10.2008. Plaintiff is the respondent herein, who filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.3,87,700/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him at Payakaraopeta on 04.01.2004 and agreed to discharge the same with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of repeated requests, no payment was made. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.3,87,700/- with subsequent interest on principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- at 12% p.a. from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, confirm the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. To prove his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 besides examining PWs 2 to 4 who are scribe and attestors of the suit promissory note Ex.A.1. There is an admission by the defendant in his evidence that he has executed Ex.A.1. It has further come in evidence that PW.1 and the defendant are childhood friends and studied together and there were financial transactions between them. The trial Court as well as the first wappellate Court having regard to the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and also Ex.A.1 and the absence of any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the version of PW.1 decreed the suit and confirmed by the first appellate Court. This being a finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The same does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this Court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the Courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the Second Appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 23rd September, 2010 PNV