JUDGMENT :-Heard the Counsel.

2. On 28-10-1993, this Court made the following order :

"In view of the substantial questions of law mentioned in Ground No. 10, the second appeal is admitted".

The substantial questions of law specified under Ground No.10 are as hereunder:

(a) When the defendant failed to give reply to the registered notice prior to the institution of the suit, will it not amount to admission to deny the suit claim later?

(b) Whether the comparison of signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act by the competent Court can be interfered with by the appellate Court on the sole ground that it is of lesser value without the appellate Court itself indulging in such verification?

(c) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in rejecting the evidence of P.W.2 to P.WA and whether the reasons assigned therefor are in accordance with the settled law ?

3. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would comment that the suit is based on a promissory note and the Court of first instance had arrived at the correct conclusion by decreeing the suit, but the appellate Court had erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. The lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document