JUDGMENT :- 1. This Second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, in A.S.No.214 of 2003 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002 passed by III Additional District Munsif, Thirukovilur, in O.S.No.422 of 2000, which was filed for recovery of money. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: (a) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,679/-, which was due under the suit promissory note. (b) Written statement was filed by defendant resisting the suit. (c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and no document was marked. Ex.C1 was marked as 3rd party document. (e) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed, whereupon the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: "a. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the findings of the trial Court without giving any reason to set aside the findings of the trial Court? b. Whether the reasons assigned by the lower appellate Court in reversing the findings of the trial Court are the reasons in the eye of law? c. Whether the lower appellate Court has the power to comment about the alleged demeanour of the appellate during chief and cross examination and can solely rely on the same to decree the suit against the appellant? d. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in not considering the compelling circumstances under which the Ex.A1 came into existence and whether the finding of the lower appellate Court to non-suit the appellant are perverse.? (extracted as such) 5. My learned Predecessor adopted as such the above substantial questions of law. 6. Heard both sides. d. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in not considering the compelling circumstances under which the Ex.A1 came into existence and whether the finding of the lower appellate Court to non-suit the appellant are perverse.? (extracted as such) 5. My learned Predecessor adopted as such the above substantial questions of law. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff appositely and appropriately, correctly and acceptably, invoking Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is extracted hereunder: "S.102. No second appeal in certain suits – No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees. (Substituted by Amendment Act 22 of 2002)." (emphasis supplied) would submit that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit amount was only Rs.16,679/- and even as on the date of filing of the second appeal the claim amount was only Rs.22,831/-, which is below Rs.25,000/- as contemplated in Section 102 of C.P.C. and as such, the second appeal is barred by virtue of Section 102 of C.P.C. 8. There could be no second thought over it. Out of over sight, the second appeal was numbered and admitted. 9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the dues were settled by the respondent/plaintiff. 10. In view of the above, the second appeal stands dismissed. No costs.