IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.632 of 2010 Between: Dr.Angani Swamy Varma. … Appellant/defendant No.3 And Satya Chits and Finance, rep. By its Managing partner Boddu Sridhar … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.632 of 2010 ORDER: - This second appeal by defendant No.3 in the suit against the decree and judgment of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, dated 20.04.2010, whereby he dismissed the A.S.No.213 of 2009 filed by the appellant confirming the decree and judgment, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1489 of 2004, dated 03.11.2008, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The respondent/plaintiff-chit fund company instituted the above suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4 stating that the husband of defendant No.1 joined as a member in the chit group of the plaintiff company for a total chit value of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.11.1999 agreeing to subscribe Rs.2,500/- per month for a period of 40 months and signed the chit agreement. In the auction conducted on 15.01.2000, defendant No.1 was declared as successful bidder having agreed to forego Rs.49,000/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- and defendant Nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors to defendant No.1 and executed an agreement of guarantee on 27.01.2000 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 also executed a demand promissory note with joint and several liability as a collateral security for Rs.90,000/- repayable with interest at 12% p.a. The 1st defendant’s husband received the bid amount by way of cheque and he paid some instalments and thereafter he failed to pay the monthly subscription amount. Hence, the above suit was filed for recovery of the suit amount. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were set ex parte and the appellant/defendant No.3 filed written statement denying his singing the document as alleged in the plaint and also stated that he does not know the plaintiff’s office and the plaintiff who filed the suit with ill motive nor he stood as a surety and that he was impleaded in the suit to have a wrongful gain. The only issue, which was framed in the trial court, is whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the entire amount from the defendants as prayed for and to what relief. In order to prove the chit transaction, the managing partner of the plaintiff firm was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13 and Ex.A14 was marked through D.W.1. The Defendant got examined himself as D.W.1, but no documents were marked. The initial burden of the plaintiff to prove the transaction has been discharged by the evidence of P.W.1 and by marking the documents. D.W.3 admitted in the cross-examination that the signature contained on the postal acknowledgment under Ex.A14 is that of him and Ex.A9 reply notice makes it clear that he received the legal notice issued by the plaintiff and the signature is similar to that of Ex.A14. The signatures of defendant No.3 on the vakalat, written statement and the requisition are similar one. Similarly the signatures on Ex.A3- agreement of guarantee, dated 27.10.2000 and Ex.A4-promissory note, dated 27.10.2000, are similar to his signature on Ex.A14. Further, defendant No.3 filed I.A.Nos.1882 and 1915 of 2008 for sending the admitted signatures of defendant No.3 to compare with the signatures on the agreement of guarantee and promissory note under Exs.A3 and A4 and the same were allowed by the Court. But the defendants intentionally failed to send the said documents to the handwriting expert for comparison as per the orders in the said I.A., which would also show that the defendants are not serious in denying the signatures and accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal being filed the lower appellate court after considering the evidence of D.W.1, who worked as a Government Medical Officer in I.C.D.S. Department, Kakinada, wherein he admitted that the salary certificate in the name of the appellant for the year 2000 is a true and correct one; that he has been working as a Medical Officer in I.C.D.S. Department from 1997 to 2003 and the address given is also correct; that Ex.A14 contains his signature; that he was suggested that he knows Sagiraju Varahalaraju of Janapriya hospitals, where he worked previously; and in the cross-examination he deposed that he would try to get the suit document sent to the handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures, held that he did not make any attempt to get his signatures found on the agreement of guarantee and also of the promissory note being compared by a handwriting expert to get some opinion to substantiate his plea that his signatures on Exs.A3 and A4 are not that of him and he never stood as a guarantor and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant now contends that when the appellant/defendant No.3 denied about his standing as surety, it is for the respondent/plaintiff to establish the same. When the plaintiff discharged the initial burden by filing Exs.A3 and A4 documents and also suggested to the appellant that he received the notice sent to him under Ex.A14 postal acknowledgment, which was admitted by the appellant and when the appellant deposed that the plaintiff got issued notice with false allegations, dated 12.04.2004, and he never signed any documents, it is for him to respond to the legal notice issued under Ex.A5. The appellant issued reply notice under Ex.A9 on 12.05.2004 stating that he never stood as a guarantor or surety for Sagiraju Varahalaraju. When the signatures on Exs.A3 and A4 were put to him in the cross-examination, he admitted that he might have signed them with small stroke of letters in speedy manner while he was conducting operations and that small differences may happen while putting three or four signatures at a time, which clearly establishes that he is in the habit of putting signatures in different manner. When the appellant himself filed I.As., for sending the documents for comparison of his disputed signatures with that of his admitted signatures to the handwriting expert and obtained orders, he has not evinced any interest to send the documents to the handwriting expert, which clearly goes to show that the appellant is not seriously contesting the suit. Once the appellant failed to discharge his burden that the signatures are not that of him, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court, does not give raise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 6th July 2010 lmv