HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.1507 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.08.2010, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, dismissing the appeal- A.S.No.8 of 2009 and thereby, confirming the judgment and decree, 25.02.2009, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala in O.S.No.204 of 2008. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Y.Sowri Reddy and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later, the defendant failed to discharge the amount due under the said promissory note, therefore, the said Y.Sowri Reddy, who was in need of money, transferred the said promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for consideration and the same was endorsed on the back of the promissory note. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that after the transfer of the promissory note in his favour, he demanded the defendant to pay the amount due under the promissory note, but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff on 30.07.2001 got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount due under the said promissory note, for which the defendant gave a reply with false allegations. Hence, the said suit. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings in the written statement, framed certain issues for trial. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1 and three more witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined on his behalf and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. The trial Court while answering the issues framed by it, came to the conclusion that the defendant did not discharge the amount due under Ex.A-1-suit promissory note and as such, held him liable to pay the amount due under Ex.A-1 to the plaintiff and accordingly, decreed the suit, vide judgment, dated 25.02.2009. The same was questioned by the defendant-appellant herein by filing A.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, who dismissed the said appeal, vide judgment, dated 05.08.2010. Hence, the Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Heard Sri D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the following are the substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Court below failed to discard the material evidence of appellant and his witness i.e., D.W-2 who is the attestor of the receipt dated 28.03.2001 through which the original holder of the promissory note i.e., P.W-2 who endorsed and transferred the Ex.A-1-pronote in favour of P.W-1? 2. Whether the appellate Court non-consider the material evidence placed by the appellant herein regarding the payment of entire due amount due to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1, which is executed in favour of P.W-2 by the appellant herein, the later transferred to the plaintiff by making an endorsement? In my considered view, the said questions are not questions of law. The requirement to file a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is that there shall be substantial question of law. Further, the said suit was filed for recovery of money basing on a promissory note. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record decreed the suit, which was confirmed in the appeal filed by the defendant. There are concurrent findings of fact, which cannot be interfered by this Court in the Second Appeal invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. That apart, as stated supra, the questions of law raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal cannot be termed as substantial questions of law and accordingly, I see no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 25th February 2011 DR