THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No. 1266 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-11-2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment and decree dated 7-12- 2007 in O.S.No. 120 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili. Both the Courts below found in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,400/- being the principal and interest due on the pronote dated 7-6-2001 claimed to have been executed by the appellant herein in favour of the respondent for Rs.20,000/-. In the written statement, the appellant herein denied execution of the suit pronote and claimed that he was working as Sub Inspector in CISF Unit, BRPL, Belagaon of Assam State and was on duty from February, 2001 to 21-6-2001; he had attended the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela on 11- 6-2001 in connection with a case and therefore, there was no possibility for him to be present in Akkacheruvu village to execute the suit pronote on 7-6-2001. The trial court, on the basis of the defence pleaded by the appellant herein rightly framed the issue whether the suit pronote is a rank forgery. The respondent testified as PW1 and PW2 was the attestor of the suit pronote-Ex.A1. On behalf of the appellant herein, the appellant herein testified as DW1 and exhibited five documents in support of his defence claim that he was on duty during the relevant period. On a careful and elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had discharged his initial burden and that the burden shifts on the defendant-appellant herein to establish that the suit pronote is a rank forgery and that he could not have executed the suit pronote as he was on duty in Assam State and elsewhere. The trial Court concluded that the appellant-defendant failed to adduce any evidence to discharge his burden of proof and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court concurred with the reasoning and conclusions of the trial court, on an independent analysis of the evidence and confirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. No question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26th March, 2010. GRR