JUDGMENT : Defendant in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. 2. For hearing before admission, notice was taken out to respondent and the same was personally served on respondent on 06.08.2012. But no appearance has been made at any time thereafter. Therefore this appeal has been taken up for hearing exparte. 3. The controversy between the parties is a debt transaction based on a promissory note. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.249 of 2009 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram stating that on 10.11.2003 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from him and agreed to repay with interest @ 24% P.A. and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant paid Rs.5,000/- on 30.10.2006 and Rs.100/- on 7.05.2008. On both occasions defendant himself made acknowledgments of such part payments on the reverse side of the promissory note. Subsequently as the defendant failed to repay the balance due, plaintiff got issued a notice of demand dated 03.03.2009 to which there was no response from the defendant and therefore claiming the principal and interest accrued there on the suit is laid for Rs.63,380/-. 4. In contest defendant filed a written statement. That the suit promissory note and payment endorsements are created and forged. That there are disputes between him and the plaintiff and therefore plaintiff filed the suit to harass him. It is pleaded that the date of pronote was originally 10.01.2003 and to save limitation plaintiff altered it as 10.11.2003. The suit is barred by limitation. He also pleaded that on 12.08.2004 there was a settlement between both parties and that debt was only Rs.10,500/- and defendant paid Rs.5,000/- and plaintiff passed a receipt. Subsequently, he repaid the balance also. However, plaintiff filed the false suit and therefore he sought for dismissal of it. 5. On these rival pleadings the learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial:- “1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one brought into existence due to disputes/strained relationship of both parties? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 6. In support of their contentions, plaintiff deposed as Pw.1 and an attestor to the promissory note deposed as Pw.2. 2. Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one brought into existence due to disputes/strained relationship of both parties? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 6. In support of their contentions, plaintiff deposed as Pw.1 and an attestor to the promissory note deposed as Pw.2. As against that defendant deposed as Dw.1. On behalf of plaintiff the pronote was marked as Ex.A1 and two payment endorsements are marked as Exs.A2 and A3 respectively. A notice dated 03.03.2009 issued by plaintiff was marked as Ex.A4. As against that a notice dated 11.02.2004 got issued on behalf of plaintiff and received by defendant was marked as Ex.B1. The receipt for Rs.5,000/- bearing date 12.09.2004 was marked as Ex.B2. The learned trial Court considered the evidence on both sides and the arguments on both sides and observed that defendant as Dw.1 admitted that there were no disputes between him and the plaintiff and there were no disputes between him and Pw.2/the attestor. On the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it found that, having borrowed Rs.30,000/- defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and that is a true and valid document. The contention of the defendant that, he had given a blank pronote to the plaintiff was dis-believed by the learned trial Court recording a finding that during the course of cross examination of defendant/Dw.1 was shown Ex.A1 pronote and he categorically stated that the blank pronote he had given to plaintiff is different from Ex.A1 promissory note. Since the defendant disputed his signatures, learned trial Court observed that it had compared signatures on Ex.A1 as against admitted signatures of defendant available on Vakalath and written statement and chief examination affidavit in terms of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and found that all of them are similar and identical. Observing that evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is cogent and cross examination did not bring any material to dis-believe their evidence, it negatived the contentions of defendant and answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. As a result, it decreed the suit as prayed for. It may also be mentioned here that the trial Court on considering Ex.B2 receipt produced by defendant it examined the evidence of Pw.1 and Dw.1 and concluded that Ex.B2 receipt does not pertain to suit pronote but that pertains to a totally different transaction. As a result, it decreed the suit as prayed for. It may also be mentioned here that the trial Court on considering Ex.B2 receipt produced by defendant it examined the evidence of Pw.1 and Dw.1 and concluded that Ex.B2 receipt does not pertain to suit pronote but that pertains to a totally different transaction. While the judgment refers to the plea taken by the defendant about material alteration in the month portion of Ex.A1 pronote, the judgment of the trial Court does not indicate any finding recorded in that regard. 7. That judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the defendant in A.S.No.129 of 2010. Learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A.) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram by the judgment dated 25.01.2012 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The view of the first appellate Court indicates that it has noticed the pleadings and evidence of both sides and findings recorded by the trial Court and it considered the grounds in appeal and formulated the following points for its determination: 1. Whether the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note? 2. Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the trial court are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside? 3. To what relief? 8. At para 14 of its judgment the learned first appellate Court noticed the defence contention about the material alteration of Ex.A1 pronote. At paras 18 and 19 it considered the aspect of the matter and finally it recorded a finding that there was no evidence to find that Ex.A1 pronote was materially altered. It negatived all the contentions of defendant/appellant and dismissed the appeal. 9. It is against that judgment of the first appellate Court the defendant in the suit filed the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The law is that, it is for the appellant to satisfy this Court that the case involves a substantial question of law. Only in the event of existence of substantial question of law this Court has to admit the appeal. Therefore, it is for the appellant to show to this Court about the existence of substantial question of law. While considering an appeal at the stage of admission it is relevant to notice the law in this regard. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar, 1999(3) SCC 722 . Therefore, it is for the appellant to show to this Court about the existence of substantial question of law. While considering an appeal at the stage of admission it is relevant to notice the law in this regard. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar, 1999(3) SCC 722 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that concurrent findings of fact, however erroneous, cannot be normally disturbed by the High Court while considering the appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Second appeal cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds. A substantial question of law is different from substantial question of fact. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001(3) SCC 179 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the rule that to be substantial, a question of law must arise and must be debatable and such question must have a material bearing on the outcome of the case. 10. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the appellant formulated the following substantial questions of law: “(A) Whether the judgment of the Courts below and the findings therein are in consonance with the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (B) Whether the Courts below are justified in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record from proper perspective? (C) Whether the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act? (D) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in dismissing I.A.No.1794 of 2011 in A.S.No.129/2010 without assigning any valid and sustainable reasons? (E) Whether the Court below is justified in discarding Ex.B1 notice wherein the alleged date of promissory note was mentioned as 10-01-2003 which would demonstrate that there was material alteration in the suit pronote to save limitation which would non-suit the plaintiff/respondent herein?” During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is to the affect that any material alteration of Negotiable Instrument renders the same void and both the Courts below did not record a finding on this essential defence of the appellant that Ex.A1 pronote was materially altered concerning month portion of it. They failed to appreciate Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in proper perspective in the context of defence taken up by the appellant before the Courts below. They failed to appreciate Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in proper perspective in the context of defence taken up by the appellant before the Courts below. Learned counsel submitted that during hearing of the first appeal this appellant moved I.A.No.1794 of 2011 for determination of age of ink as available in the pronote and erroneously that was dismissed by the first appellate Court. 11. On considering the grounds raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court has gone through the entire material available on record. Order XX Rule 5 C.P.C. provides that on each issue settled the Court trying the suit shall record the finding or decision. The first appellate Court is ordained Order XL1 Rule 31 C.P.C. to prepare points for determination and record its decision on such points and must furnish reasons for arriving at such decision. 12. The appellant urges that the above principles are not complied with by the Courts below. Having gone through the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court finds no merits in this contention. On the rival pleadings, trial Court settled four issues and gave its decision on each of those issues. Learned first appellate Court recorded three points for its determination and gave its findings and decision on each of those points. Therefore, in form and substance the judgments of Courts below satisfied the legal requirements. 13. The next contention raised in the grounds of appeal is that Ex.A1 promissory note was not proved in accordance with law and oral and documentary evidence were not properly considered. Having gone through the judgments of the Courts below it is seen that evidence of each witness was examined and all the documents were referred to and facts were properly marshalled and weighed and the credibility of witness was tested by both the Courts below. The creditor/plaintiff /respondent herein in his evidence spoke about the debt and execution of Ex.A1 pronote executed by the defendant. His evidence was supported by sworn evidence of Pw.2, who said that it was in his presence Rs.30,000/- was paid by plaintiff and was received by defendant as loan and in that regard defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and in evidence of it he as an attestor signed the pronote. His evidence was supported by sworn evidence of Pw.2, who said that it was in his presence Rs.30,000/- was paid by plaintiff and was received by defendant as loan and in that regard defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and in evidence of it he as an attestor signed the pronote. The Courts below have observed that the credibility of witness was not shaken especially since defendant himself admitted that there were absolutely no disputes between him and Pws.1 and 2. The Courts below held that for Ex.A4 notice, defendant did not issue any reply notice and if really he found no truth in the correctness of contents of such notice, he would have issued a reply notice. They further observed that except the evidence of Dw.1 there was no other evidence and there was no opinion of any expert to substantiate any of the contentions raised by the defendant. When both the Courts below have concurrently held that Ex.A1 promissory note was proved, reagitating the same, on the same evidence available on record, it is argument on fact and not on any question of law. 14. While the pronote was of the year 2003, the suit was filed in the year 2009 and the judgment of the trial Court was rendered in the year 2010. During all that period available before the trial Court, this appellant/defendant to probabilise his case on the face of evidence of Pws.1 and 2, did not seek the disputed document to be forwarded to any scientific expert for determination of age of the ink. One year after preferring first appeal in the year 2010, it was in the year 2011 he moved an application before the first appellate Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking for determination of age of ink used in the date portion of the pronote and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 payment acknowledgments. Learned first appellate Court apart from separately writing an order in I.A.No.1794 of 2011 also recorded its decision at para 19 of its judgment. It stated that the application filed for expert opinion failed to mention any reason as to why the borrower did not resort to such help before the trial Court. Learned first appellate Court apart from separately writing an order in I.A.No.1794 of 2011 also recorded its decision at para 19 of its judgment. It stated that the application filed for expert opinion failed to mention any reason as to why the borrower did not resort to such help before the trial Court. It then observed that the opinion of scientific expert brings forth evidence and being first appellate Court the provision for receiving additional evidence is as mentioned in Order XL1 Rule 27 C.P.C. But the borrower did not move any such application for additional evidence and in the absence of any such application it could not receive additional evidence. It was for those reasons it dismissed the request of the borrower. Thus, refusal to grant the prayer made by this borrower by the first appellate Court is supported by appropriate reasons furnished by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that without assigning any reasons the first appellate Court disposed of his application is incorrect on facts and at any rate it has not given raise to any debatable question of law. 15. The main focus of the appellant revolves around the aspect of the material alteration. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this material alteration though pleaded and argued both the Courts below did not record any specific finding on that. As said earlier there was no finding recorded on this aspect by the trial Court. However first appellate Court adverted to this contention extensively and furnishing its own reasons it recorded specific finding that there was no material alteration in Ex.A1 promissory note. That being a finding of fact should not easily be disturbed unless the appellant is able to show any perversity in it. Learned counsel for appellant drew my attention to Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and the stand taken by the appellant before both the Courts below. On considering the submissions, this Court finds no merit in those contentions. Ex.A1 is pronote dated 10.11.2003. That debt transaction took place on the day and Ex.A1 suit promissory note was made on the day for Rs.30,000/- and was executed by the borrower on that day was spoken to by Pws.1 and 2 and their evidence was accepted by both the Courts below. This appellant’s contentions before the trial Court rested on the following aspects. That debt transaction took place on the day and Ex.A1 suit promissory note was made on the day for Rs.30,000/- and was executed by the borrower on that day was spoken to by Pws.1 and 2 and their evidence was accepted by both the Courts below. This appellant’s contentions before the trial Court rested on the following aspects. He contended that he never borrowed Rs.30,000/- and never executed Ex.A1 promissory note and he gave a blank promissory note on which Ex.A1 was fabricated. His another contention is that, he borrowed only Rs.10,500/- on 10.01.2003 and in the month portion plaintiff made material alteration by adding digit ‘1’ thereby making it the month of November. Ex.B1 is notice dated 11.02.2004 sent by plaintiff received by defendant. This notice mentions about defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/- and executed promissory note on 10.01.2003. It is here and here alone the month portion is seen as January. It is on this the defence was built. Ex.A4 notice dated 03.03.2009 to which defendant never sent a reply mentions about this very Rs.30,000/- and the date of pronote as 10.11.2003. Defendant when wants to use Ex.B1 must explain about Rs.30,000/- that was mentioned therein. Since his case is that he never borrowed Rs.30,000/- he cannot simply say that there was mention of pronote dated 10.01.2003. His theory of blank pronote fell to ground, as observed by the trial Court that on verification of Ex.A1 pronote this defendant/Dw.1 stated that this Ex.A1 is different from blank pronote he had given to plaintiff. The first appellate Court said that, even for Ex.B1 defendant did not give any reply notice and even for Ex.A4 notice defendant did not give any reply notice. Added to that, subsequent to Ex.B1 he had made two part payments covered by Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. On observation there was nothing for Courts below to find any material alteration in the date portion. Thus, on the facts available before it, the learned first appellate Court reached to its own conclusions which do not appear unreasonable to this Court. Whether there was any material alteration or not is a question of fact. It is not a case where despite accepting that there was material alteration the Courts below considered such a document as valid. Thus, on the facts available before it, the learned first appellate Court reached to its own conclusions which do not appear unreasonable to this Court. Whether there was any material alteration or not is a question of fact. It is not a case where despite accepting that there was material alteration the Courts below considered such a document as valid. If that happened the argument under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act canvassed by the learned counsel for appellant could have made this Court appreciate that a substantial question of law is arising for consideration. However, that is not the situation here. 16. The dispute is about Ex.A1 promissory note. By the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it’s execution by the appellant was proved. Illustration (c) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows the Court to presume that such a bill of exchange was for good consideration. A pronote being a negotiable instrument certain special rules of evidence are provided in Chapter 13 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act states that a Court shall presume that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and shall presume that such an instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks about inchoate stamped instruments. As per this provision where a person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments and delivers such document either wholly blank or having written thereof an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the instrument. The person so signing the instrument shall be liable upon such instrument. The purport of this provision was expounded by a Division Bench of this Court in Duggineni Seshagiri Rao v. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao, 2001 (3) LS 239 (AP) (DB)/2001(6)ALT 95 and explained the efficacy of the presumptions referred above and how and in what manner a debtor is entitled to rebut such presumptions and also explained as to the law concerning Section 100 C.P.C. In a suit on pronote their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the principles in Kapil Kumar v. Raj Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 281 . The substance of the statute and the precedent seems to be underlying in the judgments of both the Courts below though the impugned judgments did not make any specific reference to the statute and the precedent. 17. On considering the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the earnest arguments efficiently submitted by the learned counsel for appellant, this Court finds that this appeal has not raised any substantial questions of law and not even questions of law. 18. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.