THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1229 OF 2010 08.07.2011 Between: Bollu Kondala Rao …Petitioner AND Nidadavolu Satyanarayana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1229 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.39 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for recovery of a sum of Rs.91,325/-. The plaint case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- under promissory note, dated 08.12.1996 agreeing to repay the amount on demand with interest @ 18% per annum and in spite of repeated demands and legal notice, dated 25.09.1998, he failed to repay the amount. The defendant opposed the suit contending that he never executed suit promissory note and that after receiving the legal notice, he sent reply denying promissory note. During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1, Promissory Note, and five other documents. P.W.2 is the scribe and P.W.3 is the attestor. Considering the evidence of these witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 with regard to the paper on which the promissory note was executed, the place where it is executed and the manner of execution. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of promissory note and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appellate Court on appeal being A.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, reconsidered and re-appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that there is no consistency between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the promissory note whether it is written on white paper or it is a printed promissory note, that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of promissory note and accordingly dismissed the appeal. In this second appeal, the only ground urged is that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that their evidence cannot be said to be inconsistent. After perusing the Judgment of the lower Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court is convinced that the issue is one of disputed question of fact and a substantial question of law is not involved in the second appeal. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.07.2011 Pln