HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 443 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 22.10.2009 made in A.S.No. 104 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 1136 of 2006 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 15.12.2008. The defendant is the appellant, who filed the suit based on a promissory note, and the execution of which has been denied by the defendant therefore naturally the burden is on the plaintiff- respondent to prove the execution of the same and that was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant- appellant herein filed an appeal A.S.No. 104 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge and the learned Judge allowed the appeal in part and suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 7.9.2003 till the date of the suit and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the decree and @ 6% per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 4,28,785/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization On appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal in part and suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @18% per annum from 7.9.2003 till the date of the suit and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the decree and @ 6% per annum till the date of realization. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the grounds of the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 09.07.2010 KA