IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.596 of 2010 Between: Sareddy Venkat Reddy ... PETITIONER a n d Smt.Mandava Venkamma … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-03-2010 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. 2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 2004. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,06,640/- basing on a promissory note dated 04- 02-2001 for Rs.62,000/- executed by the defendant. The defendant took the plea that the suit promissory note is a rank of forgery and that it is not supported by consideration. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant Sareddy Venkat Reddy borrowed an amount of Rs.62,000/- from the plaintiff on 04-02-2001 ? 2. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount as prayed for ? 4. To what relief ? 3. On behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined PW-1 and examined two attestors of the suit promissory note which has been exhibited A-1 as PWs.2 and 3 and marked the three documents as Exs.A-1 to A-3 on his behalf. The defendant got himself examined as DW-1 besides examining three more witnesses as DWs.2 and 4 and marked five documents as Exs.B- 1 to B-5 on his behalf. 4. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the defendant executed Ex.A-1 promissory note after receiving Rs.62,000/- and accordingly held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. 5. The defendant assailed the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.15 of 2004 by filing A.S.No.40 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. The learned II Additional District Judge on reappraisal of the evidence brought on record did not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment dated 05-03-2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ex.A-1 promissory note is not supported by consideration and the appellant – defendant has proved the same by examining the scribe of Ex.A-1 as DW-4. 8. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff examined the attestors of the promissory note as PWs.2 and 3. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is cogent and consistent to the fact that the defendant received Rs.62,000/- and executed Ex.A-1 promissory note. The trial Court appreciated the evidence brought on record in great perspective and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court by giving cogent and convincing reasons. No substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal warranting admission. 9. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 16, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.596 of 2010 July 16, 2010