THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.87 of 2010 Date : 11-2-2010 Between : Lanka Lakshmunaidu alias Ramu .. Appellant And Lanka Rami Naidu .. Respondent Counsel for appellant : Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for respondent : Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and Decree dated 14-12-2004 in O.S.No.585/2003 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and confirmed in the Judgment and Decree dated 11-9-2009 in A.S.No.7/2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam. The appellant is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of a certain amount under the suit promissory note, marked as Ex.A-1. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the said suit promissory note was executed by the appellant and that as he failed to repay the debt amount, he filed the suit for recovery of the same. In support of his plea, the respondent examined himself as PW-1 and also examined PW-2, one of the attestors of the promissory note while the appellant has examined himself as DW-1 and also examined DWs.2 to 5. DW-3 is the scribe of the pronote. DWs.4 and 5 are two of the attestors of the suit promissory note. The trial court framed the following Issues : 1. Whether the suit promissory note is devoid of consideration ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for ? 3. To what relief ? On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court has held all the Issues in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. The First Appeal filed by the appellant against said Judgment and Decree having been dismissed by the learned District Judge, the present Second Appeal is filed. At the hearing Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that DW-3, the scribe and DWs.4 and 5, who are the attestors, have in one voice stated that the suit pronote was not executed by the appellant and therefore both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel and also perused the record. The trial court has considered the evidence on record including that of the appellant who has deposed as DW-1 wherein he has stated that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff in the year 1999 for purchase of an auto-rickshaw and repaid the same at Rs.100/- per day and after repayment the empty pronote was not returned. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial court has disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/defendant and relied on the evidence of the plaintiff. In my opinion, the concurrent findings of fact on the basis of analysis of the evidence do not warrant interference of this court because appreciation of evidence by the courts below do not give rise to a substantial question of law. More over, the very admission of the appellant of his executing a pronote itself would non-suit him. For the above mentioned reasons, the Second Appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 11-2-2011 AM