HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.891 OF 1998
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff, V. Govindarajulu, against the judgment in A.S. No.13 of 1994 dated 21-07-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Chittor, whereby the learned District Judge reversing the judgment of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Chittoor, in O.S. No.815 of 1987 dated 08-02-1993, dismissed the suit with costs throughout.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the suit before the trial Court.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under:
(a) Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,440/- on the basis of the promissory note dated 25-07-1984 contending that the defendant, for himself, and as manager of the joint family, borrowed Rs.4,000/- from him on 25-07-1984 executing the above promissory note promising to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, defendant did not pay the amount. A notice dated 17-06-1987 was got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, for which he issued a reply with false allegations.
(b) Defendant filed written statement contending that he has not executed any promissory note and the promissory note dated 25-07-1984, on which, plaintiff relied on, is a forged one, as he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. Both the defendant and the plaintiff were working in same APSRTC Depot, Chittor. Plaintiff asked the defendant to settle a dispute between him and one Jagannatham Niadu, who is also an employee in their APSRTC Depot, for which he, defendant, did not show any interest. Thus, misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and plaintiff filed the suit with false allegations.
4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:
1. Whether the suit pronote (promissory note) is a forged document ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount ?
3. To what relief ?
5. To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the scribe and attestor of the promissory note as PWs.2 and 3 respectively and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendant, he got examined himself as DW.1, but no documents were marked.
6. Based on the evidence on record, trial Court decreed the suit. Challenging the same, defendant filed appeal in A.S. No.13 of 1994 and the same was allowed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, plaintiff filed this appeal.
7. The lower appellate Court held that plaintiff failed to prove the disputed signatures on the promissory note by examining an expert, as in the circumstances of the case, the same is required and holding that promissory note in dispute was not executed by the defendant dismissed the suit reversing the judgment of the trial Court.
8. Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant – plaintiff, and Sri R.V. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent – defendant, and perused the material made available on record.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this second appeal ?
10. The amount involved is paltry, Rs.5,440/-. The suit is of 1987. No substantial question of law is brought to my notice to entertain this second appeal. Only questions of facts are raised.
Thus, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 28, 2010.
PV