IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.80 of 2000 BETWEEN Kadiri Narasimhareddy. …APPELLANT AND The Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. P. VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: The first defendant in O.S.No.105 of 1995 before the District Munsif, Jammalamadugu, is the appellant in this appeal. The said suit filed by the first respondent – bank herein against the appellant and second defendant, guarantor, was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated12.03.1996, but the lower appellate Court has reversed the same. 2. This second appeal though was admitted on 23.02.2000, substantial question of law was not formulated. Since I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits, the substantial question of law required to be formulated under Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is as follows: “Whether the lower appellate Court committed error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court by misreading the evidence.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the entire case of the plaintiff is based upon the alleged acknowledgment of the debt under Ex.A2 dated 30.06.1992. He submits that the loan in question is under Ex.A1 dated 14.10.1988 but the present suit was filed on 27.03.1995 and in order to bring the said suit within limitation, Ex.A2 – acknowledgment is relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the appellant and D.W.2, successfully established that the said acknowledgment was not executed by the appellant/first defendant at the place where it purports to be and the evidence of P.W.1 – bank manager of getting signature of the first defendant on Ex.A2 at Nawabpet village stood demolished by evidence of D.W.2. The trial Court accepted the said plea of the first defendant and rightly dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, has reversed the said decree by taking into consideration a totally extraneous factor viz. the first defendant standing as surety for some other loan advanced to one Venkat Rami Reddy, which was also during the period in which the loan in question was advanced. It appears that the plaintiff – bank filed a similar suit for recovery against the said loanee also on 27.03.1995 and the appellant/first defendant herein appears to have admitted the suit claim and acknowledgment in the said other suit. The lower appellate Court, therefore, disbelieved the denial of the appellant in the present suit. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the well considered judgment of the trial Court has been erroneously set aside by the lower appellate Court without taking into consideration the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. 4. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. I have also seen the written statement filed by the appellant/first defendant wherein he specifically admits to have put signatures on all papers including printed papers and in paragraph 4, he expresses suspicion that the duly signed printed papers might have been used by the bank for the purpose of creating Ex.A2. The appellant also states that at the time of loan all these papers were signed. To my mind, therefore, the execution of Ex.A2 – acknowledgment is admitted by the first defendant. In what circumstances, the said document was executed and what point of time and the place where it was executed was, therefore, for the first defendant/appellant to explain. The evidence lead on behalf of the defendant merely supports his case that he did not sign the acknowledgment – Ex.A2 at Nawabpet village, as claimed by the Manager of the plaintiff – bank – P.W.1. I am unable to appreciate any discrepancy arising out of the said evidence, in view of the fact that execution of the document and primarily, the signature of the first defendant on Ex.A2, is admitted. He also admits in the written statement itself that it was a printed- paper, which he signed. There is, however, no evidence on the part of the appellant/first defendant that the blank printed form was signed at the time of taking loan and that the contents were filled up later. He has not examined any witness to establish the plea and the circumstances under which the first defendant executed blank printed forms. The theory of blank printed forms is not even found in the pleadings or in the evidence. In the circumstances, therefore, to that extent the reasoning of the lower appellate Court cannot be found fault with. The respondent/bank was, therefore, entitled to a decree on the basis of Exs.A1 and A2, as the defendant failed to establish his case so far as Ex.A2 is concerned. The substantial question of law, therefore, is answered against the appellant. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, as the respondents are not here, in spite of service, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 11, 2011 DSK