JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 25.11.1998, in O.S. No.19 of 1997 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit seeking relief of the Suit claim with an interest as prayed for in the plaint. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.19 of 1997, are as follows: The defendant took a loan amount of Rs.70,000/- on 01.10.1990, for his contract works from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note dated 01.10.1990, for the same with his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff in the village of Vangara and the defendant agreed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff with an interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. While the said debt is due to the plaintiff, the defendant again took a loan for an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 13.10.1990 for his necessity and on the same day itself he executed another promissory note and agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff or his order on demand with an interest at 24% p.a,. The defendant had paid Rs.100/- on 20.09.1993 and Rs.70,000/- on 19.09.1994 to the plaintiff towards the principal and interest and the debt due under the pro-note dated 11.10.1990 respectively and the same was endorsed with his own handwriting on the pro-note dated 11-10-1990. The defendant also paid Rs.100/- on 20.09.1994 and Rs.10,000/- on 20.09.1994 to the plaintiff towards the principal and interest and the debt due under the pro-note dated 13.10.1990 respectively and the same was also endorsed with his own handwriting on the pro-note dated 13-10-1990 and acknowledged his liability to pay the said two pro-note debts. The defendant also paid Rs.100/- on 20.09.1994 and Rs.10,000/- on 20.09.1994 to the plaintiff towards the principal and interest and the debt due under the pro-note dated 13.10.1990 respectively and the same was also endorsed with his own handwriting on the pro-note dated 13-10-1990 and acknowledged his liability to pay the said two pro-note debts. The plaintiff gave a registered notice dated 03.04.1997, through his counsel demanding payment of the amount of balance due under the two suit pro-notes to the defendant and after receipt of the said registered notice, the defendant did not pay the amount of balance due under the two suit pro-notes nor gave a reply to the registered notice issued by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The plaintiff and the defendant became closely associated and acquainted with each other and the defendant had helped a lot in providing his lorries and tractors and other machines for the contracting works of the plaintiff for free of rents. So that while giving loans and other helps with each other, the question of interest on loans did not arise in their transaction at any time. Though the suit pro-notes executed in favour of plaintiff at the rate of interest of 24% p.a., is a nominal and for the purpose of mentioning as ingredient of the pro-note. The plaintiff also assured and promised at the time of execution of the suit pro-notes that the rate of interest is a nominal and is not liable to be demanded. The defendant had paid the total amount of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff on the suit pro-notes dated 01.10.1990. In the same manner, the defendant had also paid Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on 20.09.1994 as had also made a part-payment under the suit pro-note dated 13.10.1990. The outstanding due is of only Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff calculated the compounding interest and the defendant is not liable to pay any interest on the suit pro-notes as per their agreement at the time of execution of pro- notes. The defendant only due to the plaintiff under the suit pro-note dated 13.10.1990 is of Rs.15,000/- and the plaintiff had no right to demand the compounding interest from the defendant. Therefore, the claim is not genuine and he sought for the dismissal of the Suit. The defendant only due to the plaintiff under the suit pro-note dated 13.10.1990 is of Rs.15,000/- and the plaintiff had no right to demand the compounding interest from the defendant. Therefore, the claim is not genuine and he sought for the dismissal of the Suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: i. Whether the rate of interest mentioned in the suit pro-note is nominal and not liable to be demanded? ii. Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of the trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, none were examine and in cross-examination of D.W.1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were got marked through D.W.1. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the Suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 25.11.1998, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri.T.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri.M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the respondent. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made by the appellant before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit against the defendant? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? 11. Point No.1:- Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit against the defendant? The plaintiff in the suit is claiming the relief of the suit claim. Admittedly the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence, but the documents are marked through D.W.1 in cross-examination, Ex.A1 is the Suit Promissory note for Rs.70,000/- dated 01.10.1990, Ex.A2 is the Suit pro- note for Rs.25,000/-, Ex.A3 is the endorsement made on the Suit pro-note on Ex.A2, Ex.A4 is the endorsement made on the Suit pro-note on Ex.A1, Ex.A5 is the endorsement made on the Suit pro-note Ex.A2, Ex.A6 is the endorsement made on the Suit pro-note Ex.A2. The defendant admitted in his evidence about the execution of the Exs.A1 and A2 pro-notes and so also admitted the endorsements under Exs.A3 and A4 on the reverse of Ex.A1 and Exs.A5 and A6 endorsements on the reverse of Ex.A2 pro-note. 12. The defendant entered into the witness box and examined himself as D.W.1 and as per the own admissions made by the defendant in his evidence he borrowed an amount of Rs,70,000/- on 01.10.1990 and to that extent Ex.A1 pro-note was executed by him for the said amount and he further admits that he paid Rs.100/- on 20.09.1993, towards part-payment and endorsed the same on the reverse of the promissory note. He further admits about the other part-payment endorsements on Ex.A2 i.e., Exs.A5 & A6. He admitted in his evidence about the borrowing of Rs.25,000/- under Ex.A2 promissory note and he also admitted about the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes. 13. The Defendant in his evidence in cross-examination admits that he executed Suit pro-notes Exs.A1 and A2 and he further admits that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice prior to the institution of the Suit, but he did not issued any reply. The material on record clearly goes to show that the defendant i.e., D.W.1 admits in his evidence in cross-examination that he has no objection to pay Rs.1,00,000/- including Rs.25,000/- deposited into the trial Court and he is ready to pay the Suit cost of Rs.6,000/- on or before 31.01.1999. He further admits that if he failed to fulfill his promise on or before 31.01.1999, he has no objection to pass a Decree for entire amount. 14. The material on record reveals that, on considering the representation made by the defendant, the learned trial Judge had rightly decreed the Suit for Rs.75,000/- and also awarded the Suit cost for Rs.6,000/- and also directed the defendant to pay an amount as undertook by him on or before 31.01.1999 and further the learned trial Judge held in his Judgment that, if the defendant failed to pay the aforesaid amount on or before 31.01.1999, within a stipulated date fixed by the appellant, the Suit is decreed with costs as prayed for. 15. Point No.2:- Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? 15. Point No.2:- Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? On appreciation of the entire evidence on record and on considering the own admissions made by the defendant about the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes and also admission of part-payment endorsements Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 and also on considering the undertaking given by the appellant before the Court below, the learned trial Judge had rightly decreed the Suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the Decree and Judgment dated 25.11.1998, passed by the learned trial Judge is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference of this Court. 16. Resultantly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the Decree and Judgment, dated 25.11.1998, in O.S. No.19 of 1997 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam. On considering the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own costs in the appeal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.