THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO SECOND APPEAL No.560 of 2010 September 24, 2010 Between: Manchiraju Raja Gopala Bhujanga Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao … Appellant AND Manugula Venkata Krishna Rao (died) … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO SECOND APPEAL No.560 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The defendant, who was unsuccessful before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein. The first respondent filed the suit being O.S.No.678 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, for recovery of an amount of Rs.65,848.20 ps based on two promissory notes dated 01.8.1997. The appellant opposed the suit. He contended that the first respondent along with him worked as teacher in Dudukuru High School from August 1987 to August 1998, that when the defendant was in financial need, first respondent arranged loan from Sri Venkateswara Finance Company, Dudukuru, that in that connection plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant on several promissory notes and that those promissory notes were used for filing the suit. During the trial, the plaintiff examined four witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The defendant examined two witnesses and marked Exs.B1 to B7. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.7.2004 holding that signatures on the promissory notes, Exs.A1 and A2, have dissimilarities and first respondent failed to prove execution of promissory notes. Be it noted, during the pendency of the suit, first respondent died and his legal representatives came on record who are respondents 3 to 6 herein. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs filed A.S.No.59 of 2004. The same was allowed reversing the judgment of the Court below and the suit was decreed as prayed, with pendente lite interest at 12% per annum and post decree interest at 6% per annum. In this second appeal, the Counsel for appellant vehemently contends that there are glaring contradictory statements in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and their evidence is wholly unreliable. He nextly contends that when the trial Court on comparison of the admitted signatures with that of the disputed signatures on Exs.A1 and A2, dismissed the suit, first appellate Court ought not to have decreed the suit. In the written statement, the defendant did not take the plea that the suit promissory notes are forged nor he denied the signatures thereon. As seen from the summary of the pleadings in the judgments of the Courts below, the defendant pleaded that the first respondent obtained his signatures on several promissory notes, which were used for filing the suit. When there is no serious dispute regarding the signatures of the defendant on the promissory notes, Exs.A1 and A2, it is a futile exercise to refer the same under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court that “there are glaring dissimilarities in the writing” is perverse finding, which was rightly set aside by the first appellate Court. The second appeal does not involve any question of law and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 24, 2008 YS