( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. V. L. N. Sarma, learned counsel representing the appellant in the Second appellant and the revision petitioners in the c. R. Ps. and Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing the respective respondents in all these matters.

( 2 ) NOTICE before admission was ordered in all these matters and Sri M. Venkata narayana, learned counsel representing the respective respondents entered appearance. At the request of the counsel on record, the matters are being disposed of finally.

( 3 ) SRI V. V. L. N. Sarma, learned counsel representing the appellant in Second Appeal and the revision petitioners in the C. R. Ps would submit that the substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this second Appeal is whether the judgment of the appellate court is a judgment in the eye of law and is it not necessary for the appellate court to appreciate the material on record after hearing the parties. The learned counsel also had pointed out the findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court and further pointed out that at paras 11 and 10 in the respective judgments of the appellate court, it had been recorded that no arguments had been advanced by the counsel for the appellant and the counsel also would maintain that in the light of the same and in view of the clear language of Order 41, Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure (for short cpc), the appellate Court could have dismissed the appeals for default but pronouncing judgment on merits cannot be sustained. The counsel also would maintain that, at any rate, instead of giving proper and reasonable opportunity to the appellant and the revision petitioner in the C. R. Ps, disposal of the matters in such a fashion cannot be sustained.

( 4 ) INCIDENTALLY, in this Second Appeal, elaborate submissions were made on the strength of the substantial question of law, which had been specified supra. In the light of the same the Second Appeal and also the c. R. Ps are hereby admitted and inasmuch as both the counsel made a request for disposal of these matters finally these matters are being disposed of finally.

( 5 ) SRI M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing the respective respondents in this Second Appeal and also c. R. Ps however, would maintain that the objection, which is being raised, is only a technical objection and the parties are close relatives and on merits, there are no substantive grounds to interfere. But, however, in the light of the language of order 41, Rule 17 of the CPC, the course adopted by the appellate Court, no doubt, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would contend that even if an order of remand to be made it would be a futile exercise.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for both parties. Perused the material available on record.

( 7 ) THE Second Appeal is preferred as against the decree and judgment made in a. S. No. 14 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, dated 29-6-2005 confirming the decree and judgment made in O. S. No. 88 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil judge, Kavali dated 27-8-2001. The suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 34,300/- basing on two promissory notes. The suit was resisted denying the allegations. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the suit pronote is not supported by consideration? 2. Whether the suit pronote is true and valid? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount? 4. To what relief? on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, p. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-defendant, D. W. 1 was examined. The court of first instance, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit promissory notes were proved in accordance with law and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved

Click Here to Read the rest of this document