THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1586 OF 1995 JUDGMENT:- The appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29-03- 1993 in O.S.No.153 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah by the second defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,740/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 29-11-1980 for Rs.20,000/- said to have been executed by the first defendant as a partner of M/s.Nichenametla Kumara Swamy Subramanyam of which the second defendant is a partner. Subsequently, on 26-11-1981 and 15-11-1982 and on 28-11-1983 payments were made by the first defendant. The final payment was made on 12-11-1986 to a tune of Rs.200/-. As amount was not paid, the suit was filed. The first defendant remained ex parte and second defendant filed a written statement admitting that he is the partner of the firm and contending that no business was ever done by the firm and the borrowing is not known to the plaintiff and there is a collusion between the plaintiff and first defendant and suit is barred by time. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, necessary issues have been framed for trial and on behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the defendants second defendant is examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked. On considering the material evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the second defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount? POINT:- It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no proof that the promissory note was executed on behalf of the firm and that the money was borrowed for the benefit of the firm and the payments were not made by the second defendant and the pronote was not executed by the second defendant and consequently there is no liability. In fact, the first defendant did not contest the suit and remained ex parte. The fact that the first and second defendants are partners of the firm is not in dispute. The contention of the appellant that the promissory note was not executed on behalf of the firm is not correct in view of the fact that the lower court has considered the above aspects and found that the promissory note was in fact executed on behalf of the firm and the first defendant signed both on the stamps and beneath the stamps on behalf of the firm. The payments were also said to have been made. Therefore, when the appellant admits that he is a partner of the firm, the liability for borrowing made on behalf of the firm cannot be denied. The contention that the plaintiff and first respondent have colluded and fabricated the document cannot also be believed. The claim that no business was done and, therefore, there is no liability to pay the amount also cannot be accepted. If really the business was not done and the borrowing was not made for the benefit of the firm, the appellant could have summoned the account books of the firm. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the contention that the amount was not borrowed for the benefit of the firm cannot be accepted. There is also no material to come to a conclusion that there was collusion between the appellant and first defendant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, in view of the admitted fact that the appellant is a partner of the firm for which the money was borrowed, the lower court has rightly decreed the suit and consequently there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower court. Accordingly, the point is answered. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 12-10-2011 TSNR