THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.467 of 2011 Dated 29th October, 2011 Between: Voruganti Venkateshwarlu …Appellant And Bolla Srinivasa Reddy …Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri K.R.Sashidaran Nair For Sri Palle Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent: ---- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 07.12.2010, in A.S.No.41 of 2006, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2006, in O.S.No.76 of 2003, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent filed O.S.No.76 of 2003 for recovery of a sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest and costs from the appellant herein. The case of the respondent is that the appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from him on 14.08.2000 to meet his family needs and executed a promissory note and that in spite of the repeated demands, the appellant has failed to discharge the debt. Hence, he has filed the suit for recovery of the said sum. The appellant filed the written statement, wherein he has denied borrowal of any money from the respondent. He has alleged that the claim is based on a forged pronote. The appellant further averred that the respondent is a professional money lender without any licence. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the suit pronote dated 14.08.2000 is a forged and fabricated with help of scribe and attestors? 2. Whether the Plaintiff advanced the loan amount and entitled to recover the same from the defendant? 3. To what relief?” On behalf of the respondent, he has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3, who are attestor and scribe respectively of Ex.A1, pronote. The respondent marked Ex.A1, pronote, dated 14.08.2000. The appellant examined himself as DW.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2, certified copies of deposition of the respondent in O.S.No.216 and 145 of 2003, and Ex.B3, a passbook. On the basis of the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has answered all the issues in favour of the respondent and accordingly, decreed the suit for Rs.1,27,500/-, with interest at 12% pa on Rs.75,000/- from the date of the suit till the decree and at 6% pa for the post decree period. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant filed A.S.No.41 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge at Suryapet, Nalgonda, which was dismissed by the said Court. Hence, the appellant filed the present second appeal. At the hearing, Sri K.R.Sashidaran Nair, learned counsel, representing Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that both the Courts below have committed a serious error in rejecting the plea of the appellant that no consideration has passed under Ex.A1, pronote. Having carefully considered the findings rendered by both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the appellant failed to make out any substantial question of law for interference of this Court in the second appeal. The appellant, who admitted his signatures on Ex.A1, has set up the plea that during the course of business transactions as a partner, he has subscribed his signature, which was misused by the respondent and that he has neither executed the pronote nor received the consideration thereunder. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court having examined the evidence on record did not believe this plea of the appellant. Both the Courts below placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, attestor and scriber respectively, who supported the version of the respondent. Therefore, in my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error of law much less any substantial question of law warranting interference in this second appeal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the second appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, interim order, dated 30.04.2011, shall stand vacated and S.A.M.P.No.1160 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th October, 2011 VGB