THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.913 of 2011 JUDGMENT This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18.01.2011, passed in A.S.No.118 of 2008 by the learned X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.01.2008, passed in O.S.No.2870 of 2001 by the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2870 of 2001 for recovery of money based on a suit promissory note. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the same on the ground that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A1-promissory note and its contents thereof and that the said promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/defendant carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.118 of 2008 before the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the suit is barred by limitation because the promissory note was executed on 07.01.1998 and the limitation period of three years would expire on 07.01.2001, but the suit was filed on 16.01.2001 after Sankranti Vacation. 4. The above said contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on the ground that the trial Court while answering the issue with regard to the limitation categorically held that as on 07.01.2001 the Courts were closed for summer vacation, the suit was filed on the reopening date i.e., 16.01.2011 and as such, the suit was filed within limitation as stipulated under Section 4 of Limitation Act. 5. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 7. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.08.2011 sj