JUDGMENT : M. Venkata Ramana, J. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff is the respondent. 2. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of Rs.12,93,127/- payable by the appellants to her basing on two promissory notes dated 03.01.2000 and 06.1.2000 respectively executed by the 2nd appellant on behalf of the 1st appellant registered firm. 3. The case of the respondent as per the plaint is that the appellants 3 and 4, being partners of the 1st appellant along with the 2nd appellant are jointly and severally liable to satisfy her claim and that they borrowed Rs. 32,700/- and Rs. 5,20,850/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. thereunder respectively. She further stated that in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 12.12.2005, the appellants failed to repay the amount due and that made her to lay the suit. 4. A written statement was filed opposing the claim of the respondent by the second appellant, which was adopted by the appellants 1, 3 and 4 raising all conceivable defences denying the claim of the respondent. He questioned the very frame of the suit on the ground that the suit promissory notes did not refer to the authorized signatory on behalf of the 1st appellant firm and claiming that the respondent was a stranger to him and other appellants. He further contended that the suit promissory notes are fabricated and forged, denying their execution. He further contended that the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration and that there was no necessity for the 1st appellant to borrow any money. He also contended that the part payment endorsements alleged to have had been made on these promissory notes are fabricated and that they did not bind them. Thus they denied their liability towards the suit claim. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court: "1. Whether the two suit pronotes are true and validly executed by the 2nd defendant? 2. Whether the payments are true? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are liable for the suit transaction made by 2nd defendant? 5. Whether the plaintiff firm is registered firm and the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit as per Sec.69 of Indian Partnership Act? 6. To what relief?" 6. Whether the payments are true? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are liable for the suit transaction made by 2nd defendant? 5. Whether the plaintiff firm is registered firm and the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit as per Sec.69 of Indian Partnership Act? 6. To what relief?" 6. At the trial, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1, her son as P.W.2, one of the attestors of the suit promissory notes as P.W.3 and P.W.4, being a practising Advocate and the scribe of the endorsements under Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 dated 21.12.2002 on these suit promissory notes while relying on Exs.A1 to A16. The second appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellants. 7. Basing on the pleadings, evidence and material, the learned trial Judge held both the suit promissory notes being true, valid and binding on the appellants, that the payment endorsements were made for consideration by the 2nd appellant as well as the employees of the 1st appellant firm thereunder holding them true and that the suit claim is within time. Thus recording specific findings on all these issues, considering the suit transaction being commercial in nature, contractual rate of interest was allowed and thus the suit was decreed with costs as prayed making the appellants liable therefore jointly and severally. 8. The appellants, aggrieved thereby, have preferred this appeal. 9. Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly confined his arguments in respect of execution of Ex.A2 and Ex.A7- payment endorsements, referring to the testimony of P.W.4, who is stated to be their scribe vis-a-vis the defence of the appellants. Learned counsel contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove these alleged payment endorsements. On such basis, the learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the suit claim stood barred by time and even otherwise in as much as the plaint was presented on 22.12.2005, if it is computed from the date of Ex.A2 and Ex.A7. Thus, disputing the liability of the appellants on the above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants requested to allow this appeal exonerating the liability of the appellants from the suit claim. 10. This matter was heard on behalf of the appellants on 30.01.2020. On that day, none presented the respondent. Thus, disputing the liability of the appellants on the above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants requested to allow this appeal exonerating the liability of the appellants from the suit claim. 10. This matter was heard on behalf of the appellants on 30.01.2020. On that day, none presented the respondent. Though this matter is posted for judgment this day, again, none represented the respondent. In these circumstances, this appeal is being disposed of, basing on the material available. 11. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether Ex.A1-promissory note/Ex.A2-part payment endorsement therein and Ex.A6-promissory note/Ex.A7- part payment endorsement therein are true, valid and binding on the appellants? 2. Whether the suit claim is within time? 3. To what relief? POINT No.1:- 12. The respondent has two big godowns at Thimmapuram. The appellants are undisputedly were in tobacco business by the date of the alleged suit transactions. Apart from using their own godowns for the purpose of business, they had also taken the godowns of the respondent stated above, on lease for a period of 10 years. Apart from the appellants, their employers/clerks were also dealing in respect of these godowns with the respondent. Therefore, the material on record, particularly the statements elicited from the second appellant examined as D.W.2 in the cross-examination reflect the above situation of earlier relationship between the respondent and the appellants as landlord and tenant of two godowns. Thus, it proves and establishes that the appellants were not strangers to the respondent or vice-versa. P.W.2 is none other than the son of the respondent. The second appellant as D.W.1 claimed that there are disputes in respect of these godowns and connected transactions between the respondent and the appellants. 13. The contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A6 are in consonance with the claim of the respondent. Their intrinsic worth along with the evidence of the respondent as P.W.1, when considered along with that of P.W.2 as well as P.W.3, who is a witness/attestor to both these promissory notes, clearly establishes that these transactions did take place. 14. Contents of these two promissory notes further reflect that for the purpose of the 1st appellant, the 2nd appellant, as its partner, had borrowed the money thereunder from the respondent. They also bear the signature of the 2nd appellant in between the seal (Rubber stamp impression) appearing on the revenue stamp in both these promissory notes. 14. Contents of these two promissory notes further reflect that for the purpose of the 1st appellant, the 2nd appellant, as its partner, had borrowed the money thereunder from the respondent. They also bear the signature of the 2nd appellant in between the seal (Rubber stamp impression) appearing on the revenue stamp in both these promissory notes. The 2nd appellant as D.W.1 admitted in cross-examination for the respondent that the rubber stamp impression (seal) appearing on both these promissory notes, is that of the 1st appellant firm. 15. Apart from the above circumstances, it is further to be noted that either in the written statement or in his examination-in-chief it was never the clear and categorical version of the 2nd appellant that the signatures appearing either in Ex.A1 and Ex.A6-promissory notes or in Ex.A2 and Ex.A7-payment endorsements dated 22.12.2002, are not his signatures. Bare denial of the transactions per se cannot have any significance in this respect. 16. Further, as seen from the testimony of the 2nd appellant as D.W.1 vis-a-vis pleadings set up by him in the written statement, as rightly observed by the learned trial judge in the judgment under appeal, the defence so set up is appearing as casual as it could be without any seriousness attached to it. 17. A demand was also made prior to the institution of the suit by issuing a legal notice on 12.12.2005 under Ex.A15 by the respondent to the appellants. It was not replied by the appellants immediately. They leisurely gave a reply under Ex.A16 on 07.01.2006. It was after institution of the suit. Even otherwise, in this reply notice, similar defence of casual nature was set up by them. Since it was issued post-institution of the suit, it cannot have any bearing as such. 18. In this context, statement of the 2nd appellant as D.W.1 that he had not seen Ex.A1 and Ex.A6-promissory notes, at any time or the part payment endorsements appearing on the reverse of these promissory notes has to be considered. It was the situation by the date he was cross-examined in the trial Court. Thus, whatever defence is set up in this case was without going through Ex.A1 and Ex.A6-promissory notes or endorsements thereon and without examining any of them either by the date of filing written statement or when his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was filed. It was the situation by the date he was cross-examined in the trial Court. Thus, whatever defence is set up in this case was without going through Ex.A1 and Ex.A6-promissory notes or endorsements thereon and without examining any of them either by the date of filing written statement or when his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was filed. This circumstance singularly, indicates that the appellants had set up such defence denying the transactions under the suit promissory notes without any basis. 19. Another circumstance to be considered in this respect is denial of acquaintance with the attestors or scribe of the promissory notes. The version of the respondent at the trial was that the scribe of these promissory notes viz., Sri Pathalam Srinivasa Rao was a clerk working in the 1st appellant firm. P.W.3, who attested both these promissory notes, clearly deposed in this respect that the scribe Sri Pathalam Srinivasa Rao was a clerk working for the 2nd appellant. He also deposed that he had seen the 2nd appellant as well as Sri Pathalam Srinivasa Rao at the godowns at Thimmapuram. It was not suggested to P.W.3 that these promissory notes were not scribed by Sri Pathalam Srinivasa Rao. Except a general suggestion that transactions of such nature did not take place in his presence, no other suggestion was put to this witness on behalf of the appellants specifically referring to circumstances under which these promissory notes were executed. Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 thus, in this respect stood supported and corroborated by the testimony of P.W.3. 20. Thus the material on record positively indicates and proves that Ex.A1 and Ex.A6-promissory notes were executed on behalf of the 1st appellant by the 2nd appellant as a part of borrowing money thereunder from the respondent. Hence, the defence of the appellants as to denial of execution of these promissory notes shall be rejected. 21. Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 are the payment endorsements on Ex.A1 and Ex.A6 promissory notes respectively. Their contents reflect that upon paying Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- thereunder respectively, such endorsements were made on 22.12.2002 by the 2nd appellant. Such payments, as per their contents were towards the outstanding amount due under these promissory notes. But none attested these endorsements nor is there any indication that they were scribed by anyone including the 2nd appellant. 22. Their contents reflect that upon paying Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- thereunder respectively, such endorsements were made on 22.12.2002 by the 2nd appellant. Such payments, as per their contents were towards the outstanding amount due under these promissory notes. But none attested these endorsements nor is there any indication that they were scribed by anyone including the 2nd appellant. 22. However, at the trial, the respondent examined P.W.4 contending that these two payment endorsements under Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 were scribed by him. The entire defence of the appellants in this context relies upon the testimony of P.W.4 as well as the manner in which these two payment endorsements are appearing on these promissory notes. 23. P.W.4 is a practising Advocate at Guntur. He was also Tobacco Union Presiding at Guntur. He is known to the appellants. He deposed that he was looking after the affairs of the Tobacco Union at Guntur. His version at the trial was that he scribed Ex.A2 and Ex.A7-payment endorsements dated 22.12.2002 at the instance of one Sri Pothuraju. It was so done, according to him, when he was in Tobacco Union office situate at Polisetty Bapanaiah company. 24. In the cross-examination for the appellants, he admitted that Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 did not indicate that they were scribed by him nor do they bear his signatures. However, he stated that the payments thereunder did not take place in his presence and that the 2nd appellant did not sign these endorsements in his presence. 25. At that stage, on behalf of the respondent, their learned counsel sought permission of the trial Court under Section 154 of the Evidence Act treating him hostile and to put questions in cross-examination. The learned trial Judge permitted the same and thereafter P.W.4 was subjected to examination further on behalf of the respondent. He admitted in further examination for the respondent that Ex.A2 and Ex.A7-endorsements, evidence payments and they were not a record of mere representation. They further did not reflect that they were made at the instance of Sri Pothuraju, which fact this witness admitted. With reference to the contents of these endorsements that part payments were made therein on the respective dates, he further admitted. He denied the suggestion on behalf of the respondent that these part payments were made in his presence and in the presence of the parties to these transactions, where the 2nd appellant signed in his presence. With reference to the contents of these endorsements that part payments were made therein on the respective dates, he further admitted. He denied the suggestion on behalf of the respondent that these part payments were made in his presence and in the presence of the parties to these transactions, where the 2nd appellant signed in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that because of his association with the 1st appellant company, he was deposing false. 26. This witness is the author of Ex.A2 and Ex.A7-payment endorsements. As already stated, they reflect the part-payments thereunder towards the amounts due under the suit promissory notes. It is further to be noted that the appellants did not suggest to this witness that he is not the author of the two endorsements under Ex.A2 and Ex.A7. When this witness is asserting that he did make such endorsements, omission to indicate him as the scribe of these endorsements on these promissory notes is not fatal by itself. He is proved to be a pliable witness for the appellants. One strong circumstance that stands against the testimony of this witness is that being a practising Advocate at Guntur, he would not have merely scribed Ex.A2 and Ex.A7-endorsements on Ex.A1 and Ex.A6 respectively, without there being such transaction and it they were not signed by the 2nd appellant, upon making such part-payments. As rightly observed in the judgment under appeal, this witness purposely came out with a false version favouring the appellants. 27. Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 reflects that the endorsements were made upon payment of such amounts mentioned therein and that they bear the signature of the 2nd appellant. According to P.W.1, she collected the amounts towards part-payments personally visiting the house of the 2nd appellant. She further stated that P.W.2 also went for collecting the amounts from the 2nd appellant. P.W.2 corroborated the version of P.W.1 in this respect. 28. Another important circumstance to consider in this respect is that none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, who deposed in relation to these part payments, was specifically suggested on behalf of the appellants that these part payments did not bear the signatures of the 2nd appellant and that the signatures so appearing in Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 do not belong to the second appellant. Added to it, he stated as D.W.1 that the signature in Ex.A2 appears to be his signature. Added to it, he stated as D.W.1 that the signature in Ex.A2 appears to be his signature. However, he denied the signature appearing in Ex.A7 was not his signature. 29. In the backdrop of the material and circumstances on record in this case that Ex.A1 and Ex.A6-promissory notes were executed by the 2nd appellant borrowing money from the respondent and finding that denial of signatures was with a purpose to avoid the liability being highly interested in nature, his version in this context has to be rejected. 30. Therefore, as rightly observed in the judgment under appeal, three is sufficient proof lead by the respondent in respect of Ex.A1/Ex.A2 and Ex.A6/Ex.A7. The material so placed with proof let in by the respondent was not rebutted effectively by the appellants in any manner since the burden shifts on to them, upon proof of due execution of these instruments. They miserably failed to discharge such burden. 31. As rightly observed in the judgment under appeal, there is any amount of departure from the pleading set up in the written statement by the appellants. The circumstances claiming that the respondent was a stranger to them, denying the suit transactions despite the fact that they had certain dealings earlier and were well known to each other, the casual manner in which the defence was set up at the trial and subsequent attempts in support thereof do make out that the version of the appellants is on the fringe of falsity. They came out with such defence with sole motive and intention of avoiding their liability and to evade repayment of the amount due under both the suit promissory notes. 32. Therefore, it has to be held that the respondent has proved due execution of Ex.A1/Ex.A2 and Ex.A6/Ex.A7, the suit promissory notes along with endorsements therein dated 22.12.2002. Thus, they are proved to be true and valid and they are binding on the appellants. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. POINT No.2:- 33. It is the main contention of the appellants that the suit claim stood barred by time. The first circumstance relied on for this purpose is that the suit was filed on 22.12.2005 and when it is considered from the date of payment endorsements -Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 viz., 22.12.2002, the suit claim is barred by time. POINT No.2:- 33. It is the main contention of the appellants that the suit claim stood barred by time. The first circumstance relied on for this purpose is that the suit was filed on 22.12.2005 and when it is considered from the date of payment endorsements -Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 viz., 22.12.2002, the suit claim is barred by time. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that this suit should have been laid on 21.12.2015 since the period of limitation of three years ends by 21.12.2005 itself from 22.12.2005. 34. In terms of either Article-19 or Article-35 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation to file a suit of this nature based on promissory notes is 'three years' from the date of these instruments. The learned counsel for the appellants though strenuously contended in this respect, effect of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act in computation of period for this purpose, cannot be overlooked. It speaks of exclusion of the day from which such period has to be reckoned. Therefore, in terms of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, when the date of payment endorsement viz., 22.12.2002 on these promissory notes is considered in conjunction with the date of filing the suit viz., 22.12.2005, it has to be stated that the suit is well within time viz., 'three years' as required under Article-35 of the Limitation Act particularly or under Article 19 of the Limitation Act. Thus, the contention of the appellants as to bar of time shall be rejected confirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge on issue No.3. 35. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. POINT No.3:- 36. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, it has to be held that the suit claimed is proved in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. Awarding interest at 24% p.a. is also justified, in as much as the transactions are established to be commercial in nature in terms of Section 34 CPC particularly from the date of presentation of the plaint till the date of decree. The learned trial Judge had chosen to award interest at 6% p.a., post decree. In the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections in respect thereto, award of interest to that effect should be confirmed. 37. There are no reasons to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The learned trial Judge had chosen to award interest at 6% p.a., post decree. In the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections in respect thereto, award of interest to that effect should be confirmed. 37. There are no reasons to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Learned trial Judge has considered the material on record in right perspective and hence the decree and judgment of the trial Court have to be confirmed. 38. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of the respondent, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur in O.S.No. 4 of 2006, dated 19.08.2008. As sequel thereto, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Order, if any, shall stand vacated.