Judgment : This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short ) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2023 in A.S.No.58 of 2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram (“trial Court” for short). 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, with a prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,52,699/- being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note, dated 25.08.2010 executed by the defendants and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.58 of 2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. The learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.240 of 2012, is as follows: The 2 nd defendant is wife of 1 st defendant and they jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.2010 for their family expenses and for business purpose and on the even date itself, the defendants jointly executed a demand promissory note at Bhimavaram, in favour of plaintiff for the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with yearly compound interest at 24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay any amount. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 26.07.2012 through his Advocate to the defendants demanding them to pay the entire suit promissory note debt. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay any amount. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 26.07.2012 through his Advocate to the defendants demanding them to pay the entire suit promissory note debt. The 1 st defendant received the said notice on 24.08.2012 and the 2 nd defendant received the said notice on 03.08.2012, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments made in the plaint and contended as follows: The defendants never borrowed huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff. There are no financial transactions between the plaintiff and defendants at any point of time. They do not know who is the plaintiff and they never saw the plaintiff at any point of time. The plaintiff might have forged the signatures of the defendants on the alleged suit promissory note at the instance of her enemies to get unlawful gain by fabricating the suit promissory note. There is no valid consideration on the foot of the suit promissory note to the 2 nd defendant from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is consisting of devoid of consideration. The plaintiff got issued legal notice with false and untenable allegations with a fraudulent intention. The attestors and scribe of the promissory note are no other than the henchmen of the plaintiff and the defendants never saw them at any time. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit promissory note, dated 25.08.2010 is true, valid and supported by consideration? (2) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14 were marked. 10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.58 of 2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, wherein, the following points came up for consideration. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.58 of 2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, wherein, the following points came up for consideration. (1) Whether the plaintiff could prove the execution of suit promissory note by defendants and passing of consideration thereon or not? (2) Whether the defendants could prove the plea of forgery of their signatures on suit promissory note as pleaded by them or not? (3) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is justified with reasons, if so, it needs any interference or not? 11. The learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants/appellants and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the first appeal. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.240 of 2012 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Sri Ramamohan Palanki, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial questions of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a questions of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi , [ (2007) 8 SCC 155 ] , the Apex Court 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 namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial questions of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising substantial questions of law.” 14. The appellants/defendants having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of the Second Appellate Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for them to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial questions of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants have shown any substantial questions of law. The contention of the appellants is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The appellants are the defendants in the suit. The defendants denied the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and also pleaded that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document. It is the contention of the plaintiff that both the defendants i.e., husband and wife borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and also executed Ex.A.1 suit promissory note by them in favour of the plaintiff. As stated supra, the defendants denied the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and also passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and they further pleaded that the suit promissory note is nothing but forged document. It is quite trite beyond the pale controversy that the burden rests on the plaintiff shoulder to prove the claim satisfactorily. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 is the plaintiff, P.W.2 is the first attestor of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and P.W.3 is the scribe of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. It is quite trite beyond the pale controversy that the burden rests on the plaintiff shoulder to prove the claim satisfactorily. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 is the plaintiff, P.W.2 is the first attestor of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and P.W.3 is the scribe of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. It is not the case of the defendants that they are having enmity with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that they deposed falsehood against them. To prove the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and passing of consideration under Ex.A.1, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 goes to show about the borrowing of amount by both the defendants from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. 17. The defendants would contend that the suit promissory note is forged document and they have not received any consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. To discharge their burden, the defendants relied on their self-testimony as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively. As noticed supra, both the defendants are husband and wife. I would like to observe that it is open for the defendants to take any plea, but it should be inconformity with probability. The defendants contended that Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is a forged document and no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 proves about the borrowing of amount by the defendants from the plaintiff and also execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Though P.W.1 to P.W.3 were cross examined by learned counsel for the defendants, in cross examination nothing was elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 to discredit their testimony. The evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants regarding the plea of forgery and non-passing of consideration, it clearly shows that they have no regard for truth. Despite the availability of oral and documentary evidence and the payment of consideration being supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3, independent witnesses, they unhesitantly disputed the passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. Despite lengthy cross examination, nothing is elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of plaintiff. This Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 regarding execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and also passing of consideration. Despite lengthy cross examination, nothing is elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of plaintiff. This Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 regarding execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and also passing of consideration. The very plea of the defendants regarding non-payment of consideration, in my opinion, is too big pill to swallow. No doubt at times, truth may be stranger than fiction, but Civil Courts should go by preponderance of probabilities in adjudicating the law. As such these are all creating severe doubt about the genuineness of the plea of the defendants. 18. It is the contention of the defendants that name of the 2 nd defendant is not Kumari and the plaintiff is also not having any capacity to lend an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to both the defendants. As per the plaint averments, the name of the 2 nd defendant is Venkata Naga Lakshmi Narasamamba @ Kumari. It is not in dispute that plaintiff issued a legal notice to both the defendants prior to institution of the suit and the defendants also received the said legal notice under Ex.A.2. After receipt of suit summons, both the defendants engaged an Advocate and filed written statement. They did not plead in the written statement itself that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend the amount under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and they have also did not plead in the written statement that the 2 nd defendant name is not Kumari and she is no way concerned with the present suit transaction. It is a well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside pleadings of the parties no evidence is permissible to be taken on record in the absence of pleading in that respect. 19. The defendants admitted about the receipt of legal notice before institution of the suit. The defendants having received the notice prior to filing of the suit, they did not choose to send any reply denying the borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. 19. The defendants admitted about the receipt of legal notice before institution of the suit. The defendants having received the notice prior to filing of the suit, they did not choose to send any reply denying the borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. The defendants did not issue any reply legal notice that 2 nd defendant name is not Kumari. In the plaint itself the name of the 2 nd defendant was shown as Venkata Naga Lakshmi Narasamamba @ Kumari. The defendants have not explained the reason for not responding the legal notice. 2 nd defendant is no other than the wife of the 1 st defendant. She admits in her evidence in cross examination that she did not give instructions to prepare written statement and her husband had given instructions to the counsel and she did not mention in her written statement that her name is not Kumari. She further admits that Bellamkonda Satyanarayana filed C.C.No.13 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Bhimavaram and also one Bode Venkata Rao filed a civil suit in O.S.No.137 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada basing on the promissory note executed by her and 1 st defendant and later the same was compromised. It clearly goes to show that the defendants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are in the habit of borrowing amounts and subsequently used to repay the amounts to the creditors. 20. The defendants admitted in the written statement that they are not having enmity with the plaintiff. The 2 nd defendant is no other than the wife of 1 st defendant. P.W.2 is one of the attestors in Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. P.W.3 is the scribe of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. The evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly proves about passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and also execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. The evidence on behalf of the defendants regarding plea of forgery and non- passing of consideration, they did not choose to adduce any evidence. Despite availability of oral and documentary evidence and the payment of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note being supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3, independent witnesses, the defendants unhesitantly disputing the passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. Despite availability of oral and documentary evidence and the payment of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note being supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3, independent witnesses, the defendants unhesitantly disputing the passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. As stated supra, the plaintiff discharged his burden and also proved Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and also passing of consideration. To rebut the said evidence, the defendants did not adduce any evidence. 21. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of substantial questions of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 22. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial questions of law arise for consideration and when no substantial questions of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , [ AIR 2006 SC 1975 ]. In the caseon hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.