JUDGMENT : Defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2021 in A.S.No.143 of 2019 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2019 in O.S.No.78 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.78 of 2016 for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,67,333/-. In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.09.2013 agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum and executed a promissory note on the even date. While the debt is subsisting, defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.12.2014 agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum and executed a promissory note on the same day. Plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the debt, however, defendant postponed the same on one pretext or other. Hence, suit was filed. 4. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter-alia that he is running gold business since long time; that for some time, defendant run gold business in the shop of plaintiff; that when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the shop, he requested time for one year, but plaintiff did not accept the same and hence, some disputes arose; that later as per the decision of elders, defendant vacated the shop and established shop in his own house; that plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and created the promissory notes with the help of attestors and filed the suit and thus prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 15.09.2013 and suit promissory note dated 25.12.2014 are true, valid and binding on the defendant? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 6. On behalf of plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were marked. 7. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 6. On behalf of plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were marked. 7. Trial Court on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that plaintiff proved the execution Exs.A-1 and A-2 and also passing of consideration and eventually, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.7,67,333/- with future interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, total Rs.5,00,000/-. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant filed appeal A.S.No.143 of 2019 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Lower appellate Court being the final fact finding Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 14.12.2021. Assailing by the said judgment and decree, the above second appeal is filed. 9. Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for appellant and Sri P. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, attestors of Exs.A-1 and A-2 in proper perspective. She submits that Courts below ought not to have placed the burden of proof on defendant regarding signatures on Exs.A-1 and A-2. She would submit that plaintiff failed to prove passing of consideration under Exs.A-1 and A-2. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgments of the Courts below. 12. Basing on the pleadings and contentions, the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration : (1) Whether the plaintiff proved execution of Exs.A-1 and A-2 promissory notes and passing of consideration? (2) Whether the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in proper perspective? If so, whether the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside? 13. Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of amount on the strength of two promissory notes executed by defendant, i.e. for Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.09.2013 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.12.2014 along with interest. Defendant denied the execution and further pleaded forgery. If so, whether the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside? 13. Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of amount on the strength of two promissory notes executed by defendant, i.e. for Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.09.2013 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.12.2014 along with interest. Defendant denied the execution and further pleaded forgery. In fact, in the written statement itself defendant pleaded that he would file petition to send the promissory notes to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures. 14. Plaintiff, to prove the execution of Ex A-1 and A-2 examined himself as P.W.1. He deposed about his lending the amount, and defendant executing Ex A-1 and A-2. In the cross examination nothing contra was elicited. He also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 attestors of Exs.A-1 and A-2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent regarding execution of Exs.A-1 and A-2 by defendant and, also passing of consideration. Thus, by examining himself and also by examining attestors P.W.1 discharged legal burden and hence the ouns shifted to defendant to prove that Exs.A-1 and A-2 are forged, and no consideration was passed. Defendant having pleaded that he neither borrowed the amount nor executed Exs.A-1 and A-2 promissory notes, failed to rebut the plaint allegations by leading any cogent evidence. However, defendant expect pleading forgery could not prove the same. Defendant also could not prove that no consideration was passed under Ex A-1 and A-2. The plaintiff as P.W.1 and attestors as P.W.2 and P.W.3 in one voice, deposed about execution of promissory notes and passing of consideration. 15. A perusal of Exs.A-1 and A-2 would indicate that they were scribed by defendant himself. When the defendant himself scribed Exs.A-1 and A-2 and put his signatures, having been pleaded forgery, no steps were taken by defendant to send the promissory notes to the expert for comparison. Courts below recorded finding that ‘A perusal of Exs.A-1 and A-2 contain the signatures of defendant, it discloses that defendant signed in some documents in Telugu and in some documents in English and in some documents as “V. Srinivas Kumar” and in some documents as “V.J.S.K.”.’ 16. Thus, the above instance shows that defendant is in the habit of changing his signatures from time to time. Having been pleaded that he would take steps to send Exs.A-1 and A-2 to hand-writing expert, no steps were taken by defendant in that regard. Thus, the above instance shows that defendant is in the habit of changing his signatures from time to time. Having been pleaded that he would take steps to send Exs.A-1 and A-2 to hand-writing expert, no steps were taken by defendant in that regard. Mere pleading is not sufficient, and defendant must lead evidence in proof of the pleading. 17. The findings recorded by the Courts below regarding execution of Exs.A-1 and A-2 and passing of consideration are based on appreciation of evidence. The evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff is consistent and nothing contra was elicited in their cross examination. 18. Insofar as scope of interference in the second appeal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC, this Court must confine to the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below where the Courts below have exercised the discretion judicially. Further, the existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of the Court are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. 19. The findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below are based on both oral and documentary evidence and they do not warrant any interference of this Court under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed, however, without costs. 20. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.