JUDGMENT This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-9-2006 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili whereby and where under the learned Senior. Civil Judge confirmed the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2005 passed in O.S.No.77 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili. 2. Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.77 of 2003. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 41,159-85 basing on a pronote executed by the defendant on 6-7-2000 for Rs. 30,770/-. Defendant took a plea that he executed the pronote, as per his auditors advice, in favour of the plaintiff for income tax purpose. The suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. 3. The trial Court framed the following issues. (1) Whether the suit pronote is not supported by cash consideration? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 4. On behalf of the plaintiff he got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the scribe of the pronote as P.W.2 and marked suit pronote as Ex.A-1. On behalf of the defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1 and examined one of the attestors of suit pronote as D.W.2 and marked three documents as Exs. B-1 to B-3. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 pronote is supported by consideration and the defendant failed to prove Ex. B-3 letter. Thereby decreed the suit as prayed for, by judgment dated 6-9-2005. 6. The defendant assailed the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2005 passed in O.S.No.77 of 2003 by filing an appeal being A.S.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. The said appeal ended in dismissal on 15-9-2006 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.77 of 2003. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant. 7. Notice before admission has been ordered to the respondent. He entered appearance through a counsel. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant submits that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and thereby erred in coming to a conclusion that Ex.A-1promissory note is supported by a consideration. 7. Notice before admission has been ordered to the respondent. He entered appearance through a counsel. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant submits that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and thereby erred in coming to a conclusion that Ex.A-1promissory note is supported by a consideration. A further submission has been made that the trial Court failed to take note of the evidence of D.W.2, one of the attestors of Ex.A-1 promissory note, in right perspective and thereby erred in recording a finding that Ex.A-1 promissory note is supported by consideration. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri. Wherein it has been held that where in a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to the circumstances under which the promissory note was executed is not accepted, it is open to the defendant to prove that the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the recitals in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the plaint is not true and rebut the presumption under Section 118 by showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour and against the plaintiff. He need not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the promissory note is not supported by any consideration whatsoever. The words ‘until’ the contrary is proved in Sec.118 do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the document is not supported by any form of consideration but the defendant has the option to ask the court to consider the non-existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of Sec. 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities, that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption disappear. For the purposes of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumptions of law or fact. For the purposes of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumptions of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 118 does not come again to the plaintiffs rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the appellant-defendant having taken a plea of the execution of Ex. B-3 document by the respondent-plaintiff, failed to prove the same and thus the findings recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court do not involve any substantial question of law and therefore the same are not required to be interfered in this second appeal. He further submits that no substantial question of law has been involved warranting admissior of this appeal. 11. In Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, the Supreme Court in para 10 has stated thus: “10. Now under Section 100 C.P.C. after the 1976 amendment it is essential for the high Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to recourse the judgment of the first appellate Court without doing so.” 12. Appellant-defendant took a plea that the respondent-plaintiff executed Ex.B-3letter assuring him that he would not use Ex.A-1 document for any purpose except for showing his income tax return. It is not explained by the appellant-defendant in what way the pronote obtained by the respondentdefendant from him is useful for income tax returns. The lower Court as well as appellate Court examined Ex. B-3 very minutely and came to the conclusion that the execution of Ex. B-3 letter by the plaintiff is highly suspicious. The very appearance of two signatures on Ex. B-3 letter said to have been executed by the plaintiff speak volumes of it. The plaintiff while being examined a P.W.1 explained circumstances under which Ex. B-3 letter came to be fabricated by the defendant. The trial Court as well as appellate Court accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-plaintiff. The very appearance of two signatures on Ex. B-3 letter said to have been executed by the plaintiff speak volumes of it. The plaintiff while being examined a P.W.1 explained circumstances under which Ex. B-3 letter came to be fabricated by the defendant. The trial Court as well as appellate Court accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-plaintiff. Added to that there is variance in the plea of the appellant-defendant as stated in his written statement and the evidence adduced on his behalf. His plea in the written statement is that he executed Ex.A-1-promissory note on the advise of his auditor. Whereas in his evidence while being examined as D.W.1 stated that the plaintiff obtained Ex.A-1 promissory note for his (Plaintiff) income tax purpose. There is any amount of inconsistency between his plea in the written statement and the evidence adduced on his behalf. There is no substantial question of law, involved in this second appeal. 13. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.