1 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 830 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa in A.S.No.48 of 2023 dated 11.08.2025. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 18.11.2013 from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with an interest at 24% p.a. Thereafter, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant repaid only an amount of Rs.1,000/- on 17.11.2016 towards part payment and the same was endorsed on the reverse portion/backside of the said pronote with his own hand writing and the defendant also signed on it. Thereafter, the defendant has not paid the debt amount. Hence, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.822 of 2019. The defendant filed written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff. He also contended that the alleged pronote is a fabricated one by forging his signatures with the help of attestors and scribe. The plaintiff filed suit in retaliation due to civil disputes pending between them and prayed to dismiss 2 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 the suit. Upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.9,52,181/- to the plaintiff together with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter further interest @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,99,000/-. Assailing the same, the appellant preferred A.S.No.48 of 2023 before the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, wherein, the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2022 in O.S.No.822 of 2019 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, remanding the suit, with a direction to the Trial Court to take steps to obtain signature of the Presiding Officer upon Ex.A-1, who marked Ex.A-1 and give opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence, if they require, and dispose the suit within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Challenging the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 4. During hearing, Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the appellant herein/defendant submits that the order passed by the First Appellate Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication regarding Ex.A-1 and parties are directed to lead further evidence and further directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within two months is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and remanding the suit for trial denovo would 3 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 not be justified for the present due to oversight, the learned Presiding Officer of the Trial Court missed to attest Ex.A-1. The First Appellate Court erred in remanding the matter for obtaining the signatures of the Presiding Officer on Ex.A-1 and directing the Trial Court for conducting trial and permit further evidence by both parties is contrary to the record. Since entire evidence of both sides was completed, therefore, ordering further evidence is a soft act on the file of the First Appellate Court in remanding the matter and such act is liable to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, the First Appellate Court failed to exercise its power as per Order XLI Rule 24 C.P.C. instead of deciding the matter finally on the basis of merits, remanding the matter to the Trial Court is contrary to the facts and settled law. In view of all the issues framed by the Trial Court, fully tried and evidence was already let in by both sides, remanding the matter to the Trial Court without any fresh issues is contrary to law and also barred when the First Appellate Court is capable of deciding the matter on merits. 6. He further submits that, the First Appellate Court can decide the matter basing upon the facts in hand and full-fledged evidence adduced by both the parties and basing upon preponderance of probabilities, the Court can proceed to pronounce judgment in terms of Order XLI Rule 24 C.P.C. Therefore, the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to 4 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 be set-aside. He further submits that, it is settled law that the appeal proceedings is none other than continuous proceedings of the original suit proceedings. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has got ample power and if necessary to summon the witness for further evidence, if it has found any defect in respect of any witness or exhibit. Instead of doing so, remanding the matter to the Court below for further evidence may cause irreparable loss and hardship to the decree holder, since the decree holder/appellant herein was placed at the stage of filing of the suit. Therefore, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the respondent herein submits that the First Appellate Court categorically observed that the promissory note which was referred as Ex.A-1 in the evidence of P.W.1 was not attested by the then Presiding Officer. Unless and until it is signed by the Presiding officer and marked as exhibit, it cannot be taken into consideration as Ex.A-1. In view of the above circumstances, the matter was remanded for taking appropriate steps for marking Ex.A-1, as such, the First Appellate Court rightly remanded the matter to the Trial Court for securing the signature of the Presiding Officer on the above promissory note i.e Ex.A-1 after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence to meet the ends of justice. He further submits that, since Ex.A-1 was not duly attested by the Presiding Officer concerned, therefore, it would 5 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 not be a document properly marked as Ex.A-1. The whole claim of the appellant is based upon Ex.A-1, since it is not attested by the then Presiding Officer, it should be marked afresh by allowing further evidence by both the parties. He further argued that, by order of the First Appellate Court, while remanding the matter directing both the parties to adduce further evidence, is not causing any prejudice to the appellant herein to lead further evidence to get it marked Ex.A-1. Therefore, order impugned in the C.M.A does not warrant interference by this Court. 8. Heard both counsel and perused material available on record. 9. The suit is filed in the year 2019 and the same was decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 24.11.2022. There is no plea on behalf of both the parties before the First Appellate Court praying that the Trial Court did not consider the evidence putforth on behalf of them nor restrained both the parties and their witnesses from adducing any evidence. 10. It is an admitted case of both the parties that they have adduced evidence at full length and they got marked their respective documents which were submitted by them. The crux of the issue for determination before this Court is, whether non-attestation of Ex.A-1 by the then Presiding Officer in respect of Ex.A-1 which was duly proved by the evidence of P.W.1 who is the holder of Ex.A-1 and P.W.2 who is attestor of Ex.A-1 and also P.W.3 who is 6 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 none other than scribe of the promissory note. Therefore, mistake of omission in attesting Ex.A-1 is by the then Presiding Officer is not fatal to the document, since it was proved in all respects. The said mistake of omission by the then Presiding Officer can be cured even in appeal proceedings before the First Appellate Court by evaluating the entire evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and also D.W.1 and it need not be remanded to the Court below for attesting by the concerned Presiding Officer, who might not be holding the Court, because of paucity of time. The finding of the First Appellate Court is not only contrary to the principles of reasonableness, but also without application of mind, for the reason that, no Presiding Officer would be continued more than three years as Presiding Officer in a particular Court. 11. It is settled proposition of law that the proceedings at First Appellate Court are continuous proceedings of the original suit proceedings. Therefore, if necessary, by inviting limited evidence witnessess, Ex.A-1 can be marked by the First Appellate Court. For that, the suit need not be remanded for full trial afresh, which is nothing but driving the parties to the situation where it has started. 12. On perusal of the record, viewed from any angle, no proper reasons were assigned nor evaluated the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and D.W.1 and made out any finding for remanding the matter to the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court. In the absence of the same, instead of deciding the matter 7 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 on merits under Order XLI Rule 24 C.P,C, the First Appellate Court adopted soft skills by remanding the matter without application of mind, which is certainly contrary to the record as well as settled proposition of law. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, setting aside the decree and judgment in A.S.No.48 of 2023 dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, while directing the First Appellate Court to proceed with the appeal in A.S.No.48 of 2021 and decide the matter on merits, in accordance with Order XLI Rule 24 C.P.C, as early as possible. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 24.12.2025 SP 8 NV,J CMANo.830 OF 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 830 OF 2025 Date:24.12.2025 W SP