JUDGMENT
C.V. Ramulu, J.
1. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24-1-2002 made in A.S. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbin, wherein the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1998 made in O.S. No. 192 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, dismissing the suit was reversed.
2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 43,000/- together with interest, on the foot of a promissory note executed by the appellant-defendant on 18-11-1993. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed in the suit.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 18-11-1993, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from him to meet agricultural expenses and also to discharge sundry debts. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A-1 -promissory note on the same day in his favour. But, thereafter, in spite of several demands made by him orally and also through a registered notice dated 11 -9-1996, defendant did not repay the amount, but postponing while promising to repay the amount. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the material allegations made by the plaintiff. However, he admitted that the plaintiff issued a registered notice to him and he gave a reply with true facts. He stated that he never borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note. In fact, Ex.A-1 -promissory note is fabricated at the instance of his political enemies.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
(1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding?
(2) To what relief?
On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On his behalf, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B-1. After a detailed consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court gave a finding that the suit promissory note-Ex.A-1 is not proved and not binding on the defendant; thus dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The appellate Court, after reappreciation of the entire evidence on record and on perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, however, came to a different conclusion and held that Ex.A-1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and allowed the appeal reversing the findings of the trial Court and thus decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed.
6. Sri T. Rajasekhara Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the appellate Court made a perverse approach in discussing the evidence available on record. Further, the appellate Court had not discussed the entire evidence available on record. The first appeal is nothing but continuation of the suit; therefore, the appellate Court is bound to consider each and every aspect of the evidence in its true spirit and cannot jump to the conclusion by picking up the evidence, which suits to it.
7. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. In fact, the contentions raised by both the parties have been meticulously considered by the lower appellate Court and rightly came to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 is true and valid; therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for and thus decreed the suit. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal nor there is any perverse finding recorded by the lower appellate Court as contended by learned Counsel for the appellant.
8. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the judgments of the Courts below and also the other material made available on record.
9. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. They, in one voice, deposed that Ex.A-1 was executed by the defendant and he borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,0007- under the said document (Ex.A-1) from the plaintiff. Whereas, it is the case of the defendant, during the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 4, that while he had some transactions with Bobbili Municipality, P.W.4 had obtained his signatures on some blank white papers and also on some Revenue stamps affixed to white papers and the same were manipulated at the behest of his political enemies, by the plaintiff and created Ex.A-1 -promissory note. It is unfortunate that except the self-serving testimony of D.W.1, there is no oral or documentary evidence adduced by him. May be, in a case like this, the plaintiff has to prove his case. Therefore, it has to be, examined whether the plaintiff has proved his case or not. In this case, the lower appellate Court rightly held that the defendant admitted the signatures available on Ex.A-1, both on the paper as well as across the revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A-1, as his signature and as such, the theory of fabrication of Ex.A-1 by the plaintiff at the instance of the political enemies of the defendant falls to ground. Further, the lower appellate Court observed that none of the political enemies of the defendant were either named or have been examined before the Court. It also held that either in the reply notice or in the written statement or even in his evidence as D.W.1, the defendant did not choose to name any of his so-called political enemies at whose instance the plaintiff allegedly fabricated Ex.A-1 -promissory note and filed the suit. The lower appellate Court observed that in the pleadings, the stand of the defendant was that Ex.A-1 was fabricated at the instance of his political enemies, but in the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, he came forward with a totally alien contention that himself and P.W.4, who is an employee of the Bobbili Municipality, are friends for the last 20 years and when some amounts were to be refunded to him by the Municipality, P.W.4 obtained his signatures on some blank white papers and also on some revenue stamps affixed to white papers for the purpose of using those papers as receipts to be given to the Municipality, P.W.4 in collusion with P.Ws.2 and 3 might have fabricated the Ex.A-1 on a white paper containing his signature from the other papers, which he gave to P.W.4 earlier and might have affixed the revenue stamps to the promissory note. This stand putforth by the defendant during the trial of the suits is totally a new contest without there being any iota of foundation in his reply notice as well as in the written statement. The evidence of D.W.1 as well as the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the defendant and P.W.4 are friends and they got confidence on each other for the last 20 years. If this version is accepted, where is permissibility to consider P.W.4 as the so-called political enemy of the defendant (?) at whose instance the plaintiff alleged to have filed the suit with false allegations by fabricating the suit promissory note.
10. I am of the considered opinion that when once the signature on Ex.A-1 is admitted by the defendant, the only question that requires to be gone into is as to whether Ex.A-1 was executed under the circumstances as explained in the plaint or as per the explanation offered by the defendant. Absolutely, there is no evidence on the part of the defendant to substantiate his case. Further, the lower appellate Court has reconsidered the evidence meticulously and gave cogent and convincing reasons for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreeing the suit as prayed for. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. There is no perversity in the approach of the lower appellate Court in decreeing the suit. Second Appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.