JUDGMENT : K. SURESH REDDY, J. The defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge-FAC: Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor is the appellant in this second appeal. Originally, the respondent in this appeal has filed the above suit seeking for recovery of Rs.2,45,300/- being the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.95,300/- being interest due under a promissory note, dated05.05.2010, together with interest @ 24% per annum. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred as arrayed in the suit. 3. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that on 05.05.2010 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her for his family necessities and business purpose and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 24% P.A. and in consideration thereof, he has executed a promissory note. Later, as the defendant did not repay the amount borrowed by him, he got issued a legal notice, dated 21.11.2012, to the defendant and defendant having received the same issued a reply notice with false allegations. 4. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint contending inter alia that during the year 2006 he borrowed an amount of Rs.19,000/- from one R.Chengalraya Naidu son of Rama Naidu resident of Chavatapalle, P.Kothakota Post, Puthalapattu Mandal, who is doing jaggery business, for the purpose of laying drip pipe line for drip irrigation and during the course of said transaction the said R.Chengalraya Naidu got the signature of the defendant in an unfilled printed promissory note. In the year 2007, the defendant supplied two cart loads of the jaggery to the said R.Chengalraya Naidu and in the year 2008 the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- and demanded the said R.Chengalraya Naidu for return of the said promissory note since consideration amount was repaid by him, but the said R.Chengalraya Naidu has been postponing on one pretext or the other to give the promissory note on the premise that it was misplaced and assured him that as soon as he traced the said promissory note, he will return it back and thereafter, some disputes arose between the defendant and R.Chengalraya Naidu. Keeping in mind the disputes, the said R.Chengalraya Naidu hatched up a plan with the plaintiff and in order to wrongfully gain from the defendant, the said blank promissory note, which was signed by the defendant, was used by the plaintiff as that of the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Trial Court basing on the above pleadings framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on defendant ? 2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated document for an illegal gain ? 3. Whether present suit is filed at the instigation of son-in-law of plaintiff ? 4. Whether there is a cause of action to file the suit ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for ? 6. “To what relief ?” 6. During trial on behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A.3. On behalf of defendants, D.W.s1 and 2 were examined. However, no documentary evidence got marked on his behalf. After completion of trial, learned Additional Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit with costs for a sum of Rs.2,45,300/- with subsequent interest @ 12% P.A. on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% P.A. till the date of realization on the principal amount. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant/appellant filed the Appeal Suit before the learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor vide A.S.No.40 of 2022. 8. The learned First Appellate Judge having re-appreciated the entire material evidence on record came to the conclusion that the trial Court answered all the issues in a proper perspective way and dismissed the Appeal Suit by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal Suit, the defendant again filed the present Second Appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. 11. This Court perused the judgment of trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. 12. It is pertinent to note that the suit was filed basing upon the aforesaid Ex.A1 promissory note allegedly signed by the appellant herein. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff as well as the defendant reiterated their contentions as were urged in the plaint as well as the written statement. 12. It is pertinent to note that the suit was filed basing upon the aforesaid Ex.A1 promissory note allegedly signed by the appellant herein. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff as well as the defendant reiterated their contentions as were urged in the plaint as well as the written statement. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that D.W.1, who is none other than the defendant, in his cross- examination has categorically admitted his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. Moreover, the defendant is a practicing advocate in Chittoor Bar Association. He further admitted in his cross-examination that he is in the habit of putting his signatures in the empty promissory notes as and when necessity arises. It is an admitted fact that the defendant has lodged a complaint against the said R.Chengalraya Naidu, but the police failed to take action since it pertains to civil in nature. However, as rightly contended by the courts below that the defendant, being an advocate, has got alternative efficacy of remedy such as filing a private complaint, as enunciated under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C, against the said R.Chengalraya Naidu. The defendant, being a law known person instead of filing a complaint before the Police against the said R.Chengalraya Naidu, for the reasons best known to him, kept quiet, rather than knocking the doors of alternative remedy. Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A.3 entrenches and establishes that on 05.05.2010 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note and the evidence of P.W.2 also shows that he being the scribe on the promissory note. 13. Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances and appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court answered the issues in a proper perspective way holding that the suit promissory note is true, valid and not at all fabricated one. Further, it shall also be seen that the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court had given concurrent findings pertaining to aforesaid Ex.A1 Promissory Note & said Trial Court as well as first appellate Court neither ignored any material evidence nor considered any inadmissible evidence, as such, the concurrent findings cannot be said to be perverse. 14. Further, it shall also be seen that the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court had given concurrent findings pertaining to aforesaid Ex.A1 Promissory Note & said Trial Court as well as first appellate Court neither ignored any material evidence nor considered any inadmissible evidence, as such, the concurrent findings cannot be said to be perverse. 14. In this connection, It is pertinent to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kapil Kumar v. Raj Kumar , [ (2022) 10 SCC 281 ] wherein the Apex Court held in Para.10 as hereunder :- “10. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such there were concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court on execution of pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The said findings were on appreciation of entire evidence on record. Therefore, unless the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below were found to be perverse, the same were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC.” 15. It is further pertinent to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ramasalamma v. Potturi Venkata Srinivasa Raju , [2011 SCC OnLine AP 748] , wherein the Apex Court in Para.30 observed as hereunder : - “30. It is well settled that the first appellate Court is the final Court of fact finding. In Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, (2005) 10 SCC 553 , it was held that when the first appellate Court neither ignored any material evidence nor considered any inadmissible evidence, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact and even if the first appellate Court commits an error in recording a finding of fact, that will not be a ground for the High Court to upset the same. Similarly in Sugani v. Rameshwar Das, 2006 (4) ALD 41 (SC) : (2006) 11 SCC 587 , the apex Court held that concurrent findings of facts, howsoever erroneous, cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a substantial question of law has to be distinguished from a substantial question of fact. It was also held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last Court of fact.” 16. Ergo, in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and there are no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this Second Appeal and, therefore, the Second Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 17. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.