No forgery of promissory note = the defendant has admitted the signature on Ex.A-1 promissory note and also the scribe of the Ex.A-1. Therefore, in view of the same, the contention that the promissory note is a forged one, cannot be accepted.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

SECOND APPEAL No.285 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

          This Second Appeal is filed questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below.  The suit was filed on the basis of promissory note, dated 13-05-2005, for a sum of Rs.35,000/-, said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.  The defendant has contended that the suit promissory note is not true and another suit O.S. No.52 of 2006 was filed and in that suit, execution of this promissory note is not mentioned and therefore, it is a circumstance to disprove the genuineness of the promissory note. 

          2.  On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined to prove the execution of the promissory note and in fact, as can be seen from the evidence of PW-1 as discussed by the appellate Court, the defendant has admitted the signature on Ex.A-1 promissory note and also the scribe of the Ex.A-1.  Therefore, in view of the same, the contention that the promissory note is a forged one, cannot be accepted.

          3.  Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the suit is barred by time and it is a substantial question of law.  As can be seen from the record, the suit promissory note is said to have been executed on 13-05-2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2006.  By no stretch of imagination, the suit can be said to be time barred. 

         

          4.  There are no merits in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission.  No costs.

 ______________________

N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

June 21, 2012.

KTL