IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.722 of 2011 Between: Sheik Shabbir ..... APPELLANT And Puvvada Ramadevi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.722 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the Judgment Debtor who suffered a decree in O.S.232/2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali based on the promissory note, said to have been executed by the defendant on 19.03.2010. The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,07,700/- on the ground that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 13.10.2003 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note in her favour. The defendant made part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- which was endorsed on the back of the promissory note, but the balance amount was not paid in spite of the repeated demands, and therefore, the suit was filed. Though the defendant disputed the execution of the said promissory note and part payment, the Court below held that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount, and accordingly, decreed the suit based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides. The plaintiff examined herself as PW 1, and got examined PW 2, the attestor of the promissory note on her behalf. The defendant except examining himself as DW 1, he has not examined any other person and no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. On behalf of plaintiff, Ex.A1-promissory, Ex.A2-part payment endorsement, Ex.A3-legal notice, Ex.A4-acknowledgment and Ex.A5-reply notice were marked. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner/defendant filed A.S.222/2010 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur at Tenali and the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.04.2011 dismissed the said appeal, observing that the plaintiff has established her claim. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Judge erroneously attached the property before the judgment which was already under hypothecation and the appellant is HIV patient. I am of the opinion that those grounds cannot constitute any substantial question of law to entertain the second appeal. I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. However, as the EP was already filed and as the appellant is stated to be the HIV patient, I deem it appropriate to grant six weeks time from today to the petitioner/defendant to pay the decretal amount. If the entire EP amount is not paid within six weeks from today, the EP shall be proceeded with against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 12.08.2011 Dsr