1 Orders Reserved on : 01.05.2026. Orders Pronounced on : 15.06.2026. Orders Uploaded on :16.06.2026. APHC010093902026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL NO: 225 OF 2026 Between: 1. R S MADHUSUDHANA, S/O R.K.SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-146, JANDAMANU STREET, CHITTOOR CITY AND DISTRICT, A.P. 2. SULOCHANA, W/O R.S.MADHUSUDHANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, JANDAMANU STREET, CHITTOOR CITY AND DISTRICT, A.P. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. K DEVARAJU, S/O LATE K.R. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O D. NO. 28-1327/2A, NEW BALAJI COLONY, CHITTOOR CITY AND DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. VENUGOPLA RAO VEERLA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: Unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.360 of 2022, on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)–Cum–Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2025 of the Appellate Court in A.S.No.13 of 2025, on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Chittoor, filed the present Appeal. 2) Respondent / plaintiff filed the said O.S.No.360 of 2022 on the basis of a pronote dated 01.12.2019 stated to have been executed by defendants / appellants herein, for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,93,430/-. In the plaint, it was pleaded that defendants being husband and wife jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.12.2019 for their family necessities and business purpose, that in spite of repeated oral demands and issuance of legal notice dated 11.03.2022, the amount was not repaid with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 3) 1st defendant in the suit filed written statement and 2nd defendant adopted the same. Their defence is that they neither borrowed said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- nor executed suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time, that the alleged promissory note dated 01.12.2019 is created and fabricated document and that they have no necessity to borrow such huge amount. Further that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from one Divya Finance in May, 2013 and while advancing loan amount, the Financier obtained signatures of the defendants on some empty stamp papers and blank pronotes, as also a blank cheque as security, that despite 3 repayment of loan the said documents were not returned and by fabricating one of the signed blank promissory notes, the suit was filed. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as promissory note was obtained in the year 2013. 4) Learned trial Court formulated the following issues for consideration: i) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants? ii) Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated as pleaded by the defendants? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? iv) To what relief? 5) The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as PW 1 and one of the attestors of the promissory note dated 01.12.2019 was also examined as PW 2. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. 1st defendant in the suit was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendants. 6) Learned Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff proved execution of Ex.A1 i.e., Promissory note dated 01.12.2019, passing of consideration and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.10,93,430/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Against the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred A.S.No.13 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 05.12.2025 wherein learned Appellate Court formulated the following points for determination – 4 i) Whether the order passed by the „trial court‟ is factually and legally sustainable? ii) Is it necessary to interfere with the findings in the impugned order of the trial court? 7) Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants made submissions to impress upon the Court that the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court as confirmed in Appeal is contrary to evidence on record, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. He submits that in view of the substantial questions of law formulated i.e., with regard to execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and non-framing of issue on limitation even though the same was specifically raised, the Second Appeal deserves admission. Pending adjudication of Second Appeal, he further seeks suspension of the judgment and decree as confirmed in the Appeal. 8) This Court has considered submissions made and perused material on record. 9) On a scrutiny of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is required to satisfy as to whether a case is made out for admission of Second Appeal, more particularly in the light of the settled legal position that in the absence of any substantial question of law, the concurrent findings of the Courts below shall not be interfered with. 10) As noted earlier, to substantiate his case, respondent / plaintiff examined PWs 1 and 2. While appreciating their evidence, learned Trial Court opined that testimony of PW 2, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note dated 01.12.2019 corroborated with PW 1 and that the plaintiff has proved execution of Ex.A1. In the light of presumption under 5 Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it observed that the burden shifts to the defendants to disprove passing of consideration and recorded categorical finding that the defendants miserably failed to prove their case that suit pronote is not supported by consideration. Learned Trial Court also disbelieved the version of defendants with reference to borrowing of loan / amount from Divya Finance in the year 2013, retaining of the documents i.e., blank signed promissory notes etc., purportedly obtained as security, by holding that if the said contention is true, the defendants would have taken steps against plaintiff to get back the empty signed pronote and cheque, more particularly as it is their case that the loan amount was cleared. Learned Trial Court has also relied on decisions of High Court of Madras etc., and ultimately decreed the suit. 11) On appeal, learned 1st Additional District Judge examined the matter with reference to Ex.A1 pronote, appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides and while referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal 1 held that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is factually and legally sustainable. 12) In so far as the ground raised with regard to non-framing of issue on limitation, learned Appellate Court expressed the view to the effect that there is no proper pleading in the written statement with specific details, except a bald plea and not appreciated the same. 1 AIR 1999 SC 1008 6 13) In so far as non-framing of issue with regard to limitation, which is sought to be projected as substantial question of law in the present Appeal, it may be pertinent to emphasize that a comprehensive issue on Ex.A1 was framed by the learned Trial Court, as noted above. Parties to the suit led evidence and learned Trial Court recorded categorical conclusions with regard to execution of Ex.A1 promissory note dated 01.12.2019. Except raising a plea of limitation which is a mixed question of fact and Law, defendants have not adduced any evidence to substantiate that suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, non-framing of a specific issue with regard to limitation, in the considered opinion of this Court is of no consequence, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14) In R. Nagaraj (Dead through Lrs., and Another Vs. Rajmani and Others2 Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the question as to whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite the existence of concurrent findings. It is a case whether the High Court of Judicature at Madras, allowed a Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for framing additional issue in respect of limitation. Before the Apex Court it was inter alia argued that the High Court ought not to have allowed the Second Appeal and remitted the matted to the Trial Court for conducting trial afresh on the aspect of limitation. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court without framing any issue, any pleadings and without 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 762 7 leading any evidence rejected the relief sought by respondent as barred by limitation, therefore, High Court was right in remanding the matter to the Trial Court. Referring to the object of framing issues, the Hon‟ble Supreme court held that there could be several points directly or indirectly connected with the main issue that has been framed. In such cases, when the larger issue that has been framed is wide enough to cover different points of dispute within it, there is no necessity to frame specific issue on that aspect. Further, when the parties go to trial with the knowledge that a particular point is at lis, had full opportunity to let in evidence, they cannot later turn back to say that a specific issue was not framed. All that is required under law, is for the court to render a finding on the particular fact or law in dispute, on the facts of the case. Further, that the Trial Court though had not framed a specific issue on “limitation”, the same could very well fall under the broader issue. The question of limitation can be encompassed within the larger question determined by the First Appellate court for determination. The failure of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue, is not fatal to the judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice to the parties. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. 15) In the light of expression of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the above said decision, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants merits no acceptance and the same are therefore rejected. 16) In the case on hand, learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons to disbelieve the version of the defendants with regard to making use of 8 alleged empty signed pronote for the purpose of suit transaction. Learned Appellate Court rightly not interfered with the conclusions which are based on factual and legal foundation. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders under Appeal. 17) This Court, in the light of the conclusions recorded above, and being of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved, is therefore, inclined to dismiss the Second Appeal at the admission stage itself. 18) In the result, Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:15.06.2026 Ssv 9 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL No.225 OF 2026 Date:15.06.2026 Ssv