APHC010132982024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206]

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

SECOND APPEAL NO: 543/2024

Between:

Indeti Srinivasa Rao ...APPELLANT

AND

Nagavarapu Nagaraju ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following Judgment:

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.358 of 2014 against the appellant, in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla for recovery of money supported by a pronote dated 08.08.2012.

2. The case of the respondent was that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.08.2012 for family expenses and had executed a pronote in favour of the respondent for repaying the same with interest, compounded at the rate of 24% p.a. As the appellant was not paying the said amounts, the respondent had got a legal notice dated 31.07.2014 issued to the appellant. However, the appellant even after receipt of the notice on 04.08.2014 had not replied to the same prompting the respondent to file the suit.

3. The appellant took the defence, in his written statement, that the respondent had no acquaintance with the appellant. The appellant also contended that the respondent had certain financial dealings with his nephew, who is the son of his brother and due to the disputes between his nephew and the respondent, the present suit came to be filed against him as means of pressuring his nephew as well as himself. The appellant also denied his signature on the pronote which was subsequently marked as Ex.A1.

4. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court had held that the appellant had executed the pronote on the ground that the appellant had not really disputed the pronote except denying the same in the written statement. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, after taking into account the fact that the appellant had not taken any steps to get the signature on the pronote compared with any of the admitted signatures and that the appellant had not produced any of the contemporaneous signatures for such comparison had held that the version of the appellant cannot be accepted. The appellate Court also took a further view that the signature of the appellant on the pronote could not have been forged by the respondent as he was unaware of the actual signature of the appellant. The appellate Court held that if the contention of the appellant that he had no acquaintance with the respondent

was to be accepted, there would be no possibility for the respondent to know what the signature of the appellant looks like.

5. To sum up, both the trial Court and the appellate Court, on a finding of fact, had held that the defence of the appellant is not acceptable.

6. In such circumstances, and keeping in view of the fact that no substantial question of law really arises in this case, no further purpose would be served in proceeding with this appeal.

7. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________________

RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

SECOND APPEAL No.543 of 2024

Dt: 20.09.2024

RJS