APHC010619172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 950/2025 Between: 1. VARANASI RAJESWRARAO,, S/O. LATE SEETARAMASWAMY, AGED 67 YEARS, HINDU, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR .NO.4-36, GOLLA VEEDHI, VEDULLAVALASA,VILLAGE, POLAKI MANDAL. SRIKAKULAM DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. VARANASI LAXMINARAYANA, S/O.LATE SRIRAMULU, AGED 83 YEARS, HINDU, RTD EMPLOYEE, RIO. D.NO 4-24, VEDULLAVALASA,VILLAGE, POLAKI MANDAL. SRIKAKULAM DIST. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent: Nil The Court made the following: 1. 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Umasankar Lokanadham, learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. The Second Appeal is filed by the Defendant in a suit for Money Recovery bearing O.S. No.1 of 2021. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2025, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, had decreed the said Suit in favour of the Plaintiff with costs. The successful Defendant filed Appeal Suit No.21 of 2025 before the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 14.08.2025, Appeal Suit No.21 of 2025 was dismissed without costs. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is a substantial question of law, inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge did not consider the issue of limitation. He would submit that a Promissory Note dated 01.07.2014 was executed, and that the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant made an endorsement in the year 2017. He would submit that the Promissory Note executed is barred by limitation, since the Suit was filed in the year 2021, whereas the Plaintiff contended that the endorsement was done on 26.06.2017. Accordingly, limitation would commence from the said date, and any remaining period would be covered by the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation. 4. On a query made by this Court to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, he would submit that the issue of limitation was neither averred by the Defendant in the Written Statement nor was it framed by the Trial Judge. He would submit that the Counsel for the Defendant had only made submissions during the course of arguments with regard to limitation. He would submit that the endorsement dated 26.06.2017 has neither been marked nor processed. 3 5. This Court has perused the Judgment of the Trial Court passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, dated 27.02.2025. 6. Para 9(iii) and 9(iv) of the judgment in the Suit are usefully extracted hereunder: “9(iii) …So, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A4 categorically prove and establish that the Defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 01.07.2014 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 15% per annum and that the Defendant received the entire cash consideration under Ex.A1 in the presence of attestors and scribe and subsequently he repaid an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 26.06.2017 towards part payment, thereafter he failed to repay the borrowed amount to the Plaintiff. It is apt to state here that the defendant is disputing his signature and contending that it is a forged document. But he failed to take steps to send the Ex.A1 Suit promissory note to the Expert opinion to Handwriting expert for comparing the signature of defendant on Ex.A1 with his admitted signature. No scrap of paper was produced by the defendant in order to prove their contention. Mere denials does not establish the case of the defendant and it must be proved by producing cogent and convincing evidence before this court. The defendant did not chose to produce any piece of evidence nor they took steps to send the signature defendant on Ex.A1 Suit promissory note to the Handwriting expert to compare his signature with the admitted signature and to prove that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belongs to the defendant Though, the learned counsel for the defendant cross examined Pws.1 and 2 to length and in depth, nothing was elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant to discredit the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. So, the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A4 prove and establish the due execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff after receiving the entire cash consideration from the Plaintiff. 9(iv) …Moreover, the contents of Ex.A1 categorically shows that it was executed on 01.07.2014 and the defendant made a part payment of Rs. 1,80,000/-on 26.06.2017, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 also support the contents of ExA1 promissory note. Further, though PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant, nothing was elicited to discredit or shake the credibility of the evidence of PW.1. So, there is nothing to doubt in the evidence of PW.1 with respect to the due execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff and passing of consideration to the Defendant from the Plaintiff under Ex.A1. As the defendant could not rebut the evidence of Pw.1 by 4 producing cogent evidence in support of their contention, it is held that the Defendant failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence let in by the Plaintiff and also the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act….” 7. On the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendant failed to refer to the documentary evidence and the contentions of the Plaintiff. Insofar as Issue No.3 is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has held in Para 10 as under: “10. In view of the discussion already made supra while answering issue Nos.1 and 2, it is held that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant as prayed for and it is held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is entitled to be decreed in his favour as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.” 8. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the Trial Judge as recorded in Paras 32 & 33 of the Judgment dated 14.08.2025. 9. Having considered the same, this Court finds that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court do not deserve to be interfered with, inasmuch as the present Second Appeal is devoid of any merit. 10. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 08.01.2026 DSV 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 950/2025 08.01.2026 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No : SECOND APPEAL NO: 950/2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 08.01.2026 GRKP, J Second Appeal is dismissed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 7