Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 215 (AP)

J. Pradeep Kumar Reddy v. Palle Subba Reddy

2026-03-24

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2026
JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025, in A.S.No.87 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2023, in O.S.No.415 of 2018, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.415 of 2018. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.415 of 2018 on the file of the on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, with a prayer for recovery of Rs.10,53,200/- basing on two suit promissory notes dated 02.03.2017 & 07.07.2017 with subsequent interest and for costs. 4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, after conclusion of trial, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.87 of 2023, before the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second 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.415 of 2018, is as follows: The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.03.2017 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff further pleaded that again on 07.07.2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff further pleaded that despite his repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the debt under the promissory notes and postponed the same on some pretext or the other, and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit. 7. The plaintiff further pleaded that despite his repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the debt under the promissory notes and postponed the same on some pretext or the other, and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit. 7. The case of the defendant, as per the averments in the written statement is as follows: The defendant pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed any promissory notes. The defendant further pleaded that the alleged two promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- dated 02.03.2017 and Rs.5,00,000/- dated 07.07.2017 respectively were created and forged by the plaintiff with an intention to harass the defendant and to extract money from him, and further pleaded that the plaintiff never demanded that the defendant repay the amount in respect of the alleged two suit promissory notes debts and, as such, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the suit two promissory notes dated 02.03.2017 and 07.07.2017 are true, valid and binding upon defendant? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for? 3) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. 10. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, 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 defendant in the aforesaid suit filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.87 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether there any reasonable grounds to set aside or modified or to interfere in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court? 2) Whether there are grounds to remand the matter to the trial Court for disposal afresh on framing the necessary issues? and 3) To what relief? 11. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendant. 2) Whether there are grounds to remand the matter to the trial Court for disposal afresh on framing the necessary issues? and 3) To what relief? 11. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant in O.S.No.415 of 2018 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Sri Shaik Md. Umar Abdullah, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, 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 C.P.C., could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question 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. To be “substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 14. The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 15. 14. The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question 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 appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of appellant 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 as well as the first appellate Court. 16. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.03.2017 and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and further on 07.07.2017, the defendant borrowed another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and also executed another demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that mere vague pleadings without proof of actual date, time or place of demand in the plaint are not sufficient for the purpose of filing a suit for recovery of money by the plaintiff and that without issuing any prior notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money and that the present suit itself is not maintainable. As could be seen from the entire material on record in the plaint itself, the plaintiff specifically pleaded and also reiterated the same in his evidence that despite repeated demands made by him after execution of Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes, the defendant failed to repay the same. It is well settled that “issuance of notice is not strictly mandatory for all recovery of money suits”. 17. The plaintiff to discharge his burden examined himself as P.W.1 and also produced two (02) original demand promissory notes along with the plaint itself and got exhibited the same as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. It is well settled that “issuance of notice is not strictly mandatory for all recovery of money suits”. 17. The plaintiff to discharge his burden examined himself as P.W.1 and also produced two (02) original demand promissory notes along with the plaint itself and got exhibited the same as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. As per Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, the defendant himself scribed the said two pro-notes on the respective dates as mentioned in the promissory notes. Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 go to show that one Dodi Krishnaiah is the sole attestor to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes. The appellant/defendant admitted in his evidence itself that the plaintiff is a known person to him through his friend and got acquaintance with the plaintiff prior to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes i.e. since 2016 or 2017 and there are no disputes between him and the plaintiff except the present suit. He further admits that the attestor is Dodi Krishnaiah, who is a known person to him; he borrowed money from Dodi Krishnaiah and later discharged the same. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend to prove Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes, that the sole attestor in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes was not at all examined by the plaintiff. It is well settled that “the pronote is not a compulsory attestable document”. Therefore, there is no need to examine the attestor to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes. Moreover, in cross-examination, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff from the defendant/D.W.1 that the defendant threatened the sole attestor Dodi Krishnaiah and that he refused to come to the Court to give evidence. The said suggestion was denied by the defendant. It is not the case of the defendant that there was enmity between him and the plaintiff and that he deposed falsehood against him. In cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the plaintiff to discredit the testimony of the plaintiff. The plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint and also in his evidence that despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the promissory notes amount and that he filed the present suit. As noticed supra, in general, in a civil suit for recovery of money, the pre-litigation notice is not a statutory necessity. 19. To discharge his initial burden, the respondent/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes. As noticed supra, in general, in a civil suit for recovery of money, the pre-litigation notice is not a statutory necessity. 19. To discharge his initial burden, the respondent/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes. Moreover, the defendant himself admitted that he is not having any other disputes with the plaintiff and they are known to each other prior to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes itself. Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes go to show that the defendant himself scribed the pronotes Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. The plaintiff being the owner of Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes proved that the defendant himself scribed Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes after receiving the consideration under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes. Here, the appellant is not an illiterate, and he is a graduate. To disprove Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes, no rebuttal evidence was produced by the defendant. The appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by adducing evidence in support of his defence. 20. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge as well as the learned First Appellate Judge arrived at concurrent findings that Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But, it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where: 1. The Courts below have ignored the material evidence or acted on no evidence. 2. The Courts have drawn wrong inferences from a proved fact by applying the law erroneously. 3. The Courts have wrongly cast burden of proof. 21. The present case does not fall within the ambit of the aforesaid exceptions as stated supra. 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 a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 22. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 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 question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question 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 case on 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. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.