THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1404 OF 2011 08.12.2011 Between: Yavanmanda Satyanarayanaraju …Appellant AND Srikakolapu Ramalingeswara Subrahmanyam …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1404 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendant in the Courts below ﬁled the instant appeal. The respondent’s (hereafter, plaintiﬀ) suit being O.S.No.365 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram for recovery of amount based on promissory note was decreed and that the same was conﬁrmed by order dated 01.08.2007 by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram in A.S.No.26 of 2006. The second appeal is ﬁled against the said Judgment. The plaintiﬀ instituted the suit alleging that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.60,015/- under a promissory note dated 10.08.2001 and agreeing to pay interest @ 24% per annum, and that in spite of the demand, he failed to pay the amount. The defendant opposed the suit stating that he borrowed the amount ten years ago and repaid the same, but the plaintiﬀ did not return the promissory note. Taking advantage of the unreturned promissory note, the suit was filed. During the trial, the plaintiﬀ examined two witnesses and marked three documents, and the defendants also examined two witnesses and no documents were marked. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court on probabilities believed the plaintiﬀ and decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. This Court heard the counsel for the appellant. The only submission made is that when there is a speciﬁc denial of execution of Ex.A.1, promissory note, the non-examination of the scribe of the Ex.A.1 must lead to an adverse inference against the plaintiﬀ and therefore, the suit promissory note cannot be said to be proved. I am afraid the submission cannot be accepted. Before the trial Court, the plaintiﬀ himself deposed as P.W.1 proving Ex.A.1, promissory note. His version was corroborated by P.W.2, who is attestor. Merely, because the scribe is not examined, it cannot be said that the promissory note is not proved, especially when the defendant pleaded discharge. It is well settled that when the plea of discharge is taken, entire burden lies on the defendant. In this case, he failed to discharge the burden to the satisfaction of the Court below. No substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2011 Pln