JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri E.V.V. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Having regard to the nature of this matter and considering that it is based purely on fact situation whereby jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is not desirable to be exercised, this matter is now being disposed of. 3. The defendant is the appellant and the respondent is the plaintiff. 4. The respondent laid the suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs.5,73,900/- (Rupees Five lakhs seventy three thousand nine hundred only) on the foot of a promissory note dated 27.12.2013, for future interest and costs. 5. The case of the respondent, at the trial was that, the appellant had borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty thousand only) under the above stated promissory note agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest per annum upon executing it. His further case was that, the appellant had issued a cheque on Global Trust Bank Limited, M.G.Road, Vijayawada for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards part payment that was dishonoured when presented for payment. It was also his case that a notice was issued on behalf of respondent on 08.01.2015 to which the appellant got issued a reply on 13.01.2015, on which a rejoinder was issued by the respondent on 13.01.2015. In the circumstances, claiming that the appellant failed to repay the amount due inspite of demands, he laid the suit. 6. The substantial defence of the appellant at the trial was one on the denial of the transaction under the suit promissory note, calling it a rank forgery and devoid of consideration. The appellant also questioned the financial capacity of the respondent to lend such huge amount. He further contended that one Mr. Sunil with whom he had transactions earlier was instrumental in bringing out the suit promissory note and to make this false claim through the respondent. 7. On the pleadings, the trial Court settled necessary issues relating to proof of suit promissory note and if the respondent is entitled for the amount so obtained. 8. The parties went to trial, where, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and the alleged attestor to the suit promissory note as PW2. The respondent also relied on Exs. A-1 to A-5 in support of his contention and examined himself as DW-1, one of his bankers as DW2, while relying on Exs. 8. The parties went to trial, where, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and the alleged attestor to the suit promissory note as PW2. The respondent also relied on Exs. A-1 to A-5 in support of his contention and examined himself as DW-1, one of his bankers as DW2, while relying on Exs. B-1 to B-35 in support of his contention. 9. Upon the material and evidence, the trial Court rejected the defence of the appellant and accepting the claim of the respondent, decreed the suit with costs with future interest at 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and later at 6% per annum till realization. 10. The appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst. The appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court leading to dismissal of the appeal. These are the circumstances that lead to presenting the second appeal. 11. Sri E.V.V. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that both the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record properly particularly, with reference to the defence of the appellant as to financial incapacity of the respondent to lend such huge amount under the alleged suit promissory note. The effect of suits and criminal cases pending against the respondent as per Exs. B-26, B-28, B-30, B-32 and B-34 which are all extracts downloaded from e-Courts website relating to these matters are pressed into service in this context. 12. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that, when the respondent on his own showing is an employee who was drawing about Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) per month without any further means or source of income, could not have lent such huge amount under Ex.A-1 and in these circumstances, the defence of the appellant that the respondent is only name lender to and one Mr. Sunil with whom the appellant had transactions earlier is more probable. Therefore, in these circumstances when there is improper appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, it is necessary that such question be considered in the second appeal. 13. These contentions call for consideration of the claims set up by both the parties as well as the evidence on record. Even at this stage, when this Court is considering this matter, an obligation is cast to record reasons as to why second appeal is not being admitted. 14. 13. These contentions call for consideration of the claims set up by both the parties as well as the evidence on record. Even at this stage, when this Court is considering this matter, an obligation is cast to record reasons as to why second appeal is not being admitted. 14. Such being the perspective, there is need for consideration of the material record. 15. Ex.A-1 is the suit promissory note said to have been executed by the appellant upon borrowing money as stated above and subject to such terms mentioned therein. There is not only evidence of PW1 to prove this transaction but also of PW2 who is one of the attestors to it. Their testimony is amply making out that there was this suit transaction. 16. Both the Courts below mainly considered the fact that the signature appearing on Ex.A-1 promissory note though disputed in the written statement, was admitted by the appellant at the trial. The reason considered in this context by both the Courts below is nature of defence set up by the appellant himself. This defence is that, one Mr. Sunil had obtained the blank promissory note with his signature as well as blank cheques with his signature. The trial Court also took into consideration, the specific suggestion made to PW1 in cross-examination in this context. This suggestion is as to the effect of admission of signature of the appellant on Ex.A-1 suit promissory note. 17. On such basis, holding that when there is proof of this promissory note, through PW1 and PW2 and having regard to the aforestated fact of admission of signature of the appellant appearing on Ex.A-1, both the Courts held that the suit transaction stood proved. 18. Thereupon, both the Courts raised presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to hold that the promissory note is supported by consideration. 19. The contentions sought to be raised as to the alleged incapacity of the respondent was also considered by both the Courts below rejecting it, for the reasons stated therein. 20. From the testimony of PW1, it is manifest that he had several money transactions with others like borrowing and repaying them. In his deposition PW1 also stated that he is dependant on his salary with no other source of income. Further he stated that he owns a house at Prasadampadu. 21. 20. From the testimony of PW1, it is manifest that he had several money transactions with others like borrowing and repaying them. In his deposition PW1 also stated that he is dependant on his salary with no other source of income. Further he stated that he owns a house at Prasadampadu. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the statements of PW1 elicited in cross-examination in respect of the money transactions where he was indebted to others. These statements infact offer a stand in support of the respondent establishing his where-with-all, insofaras his incapacity to lend money. They further established that he has such capacity to raise money and his status as such, in this context, need not be doubted. 22. Capacity to raise money is one factor in this context to consider. It is not that he should have ready funds at his disposal for this purpose. Law does not contemplate such a situation. Therefore, when the statements elicited in cross examination from the respondent coupled with the nature of defence set up by the appellant is considered, the inference to draw is as stated above, that the respondent had necessary means and capacity and that he was able to raise funds to lend. The judgments of both the Courts below, did not state these factors in so many words. Yet, the conclusions drawn by both the Courts below are based on facts. Therefore rightly the contention of the respondent were accepted holding that he had necessary means and capacity to lend by the date of Ex.A-1. 23. Evidence of DW1 is highly interested since he deposed with reference to the nature of defence he has set up. 24. Another factor to consider is issuance of a cheque to respondent by the appellant, which was in custody of the respondent himself. The fact that this cheque was dishonoured when presented by the respondent to his banker, is not disputed by the appellant. 25. When all these factors and circumstances are considered cumulatively, the conclusion to draw now is that, both the Courts are justified in rejecting the defence of the appellant and accepting the claim of the respondent. These are all the questions which are in the realm of facts. This Court sitting in second appeal in these circumstances, should withhold itself exercising its juricdiction in terms of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. These are all the questions which are in the realm of facts. This Court sitting in second appeal in these circumstances, should withhold itself exercising its juricdiction in terms of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, being satisfied that there are no such questions muchless substantial questions of law to consider in this second appeal, the same has to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this case stand closed.