APHC010523282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 734/2025 Between: 1. JAMPANI RAMESH BABU,, S/O RANGARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC RETIRED ARMY PENSIONER, R/O NEAR KALAYANA MANDAPAM AND POLICE STATION, VETAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL. ...APPELLANT AND 1. POLISETTI PRAKASARAO, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 69years, Occ Agriculturist, R/o Pedavaram Post, Nagaram Mandal. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section ___________ against ordersappellants beg to present this Second appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 19-09- 2024 in A.S. No. 02 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 29-02-2024 in O.S. No. 120 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the Second Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 19-09-2024 in A.S. No. 02 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District 2 RRR,J S.A.No.734 of 2025 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Judgment dated 19-09- 2024 in A.S. No. 02 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District confirming the decree and Judgement dated 29-02-2024 in O.S No. 120 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ 3 RRR,J S.A.No.734 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.120 of 2021, before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle, for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @24% p.a. from the appellant herein. This Suit was also based on a promissory note, issued by the appellant herein. In the course of the Trial, the appellant had initially taken a stand in his written statement that, he had never taken any loan from the respondent and the promissory note executed by the appellant is a fabricated and a forged document. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 and the witness who attested the pronote and the scribe of the pronote were examined as P.W.2 & 3. This evidence was recorded between 16.11.2022, when the chief affidavits were filed till 13.12.2022, when P.Ws.1 to 4 were cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. After completion of this evidence, the appellant had marked Ex.B1, under which the respondent is said to have acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,00,000/-, on 17.10.2022. This document was disputed by the respondent, on the ground that, he had never received any such amount, and had not executed Ex.B1. The respondent also took the stand that there was no pleading, regarding the repayment of money and as such, the document is not admissible once there is no pleading to that fact. 2. The version of the appellant was rejected by the Trial Court, which held that Ex.B.1, is not believable. The Trial Court allowed the Suit, by way of a judgment and decree, dated 29.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 4 RRR,J S.A.No.734 of 2025 appellant moved Appeal Suit bearing No.2 of 2024, before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Repalle. The Appellate Court also disbelieved the version of the appellant that the said amount had been paid during the pendency of the Suit. The Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal Suit No.2 of 2024, by way of a judgment, dated 19.09.2024 3. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellant has moved the present Second Appeal. 4. Sri T. D. Pani Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that, both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, had misdirected themselves in disbelieving the version of the appellant. He would also contend that, once Ex.B.1 was marked and proved through the appellant as well as D.W2, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should have accepted the proof of repayment. 5. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court held that the version of the appellant is not believable inasmuch as the repayment was said to have occurred, on 17.10.2022, while the examination of the witnesses of the respondent had commenced only from November, 2022 and went on till December, 2022, and there was no whisper about repayment or the execution of Ex.B.1 in the cross-examination. The Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, also held that, in the absence of such pleading in the written statement, it would not be appropriate to believe the version of the appellant. 5 RRR,J S.A.No.734 of 2025 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would also point out that the appellant, in the course of the cross-examination as P.W.1, was specifically asked whether he was present during the cross-examination of P.W.s 1 to 3 and had replied in the affirmative. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the silence on the part of the appellant, while his counsel was cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff, and the non-mention of Ex.B.1 or the factum of repayment of the suit amount is sufficient to disbelieve the version of the appellant. 7. The aforesaid evaluation of evidence and probabilities by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court do not suffer from any infirmity. This Court concurs in the reasoning offered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. In these circumstances, no substantial questions of law arising out of the said judgments are required to be considered by this Court to intervene in the matter. 8. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J KPV 6 RRR,J S.A.No.734 of 2025 210 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL No.734 of 2025 06.03.2026 KPV 7 RRR,J S.A.No.734 of 2025