On 7-3-2000, this Court made the following order:

"Admit. The following substantial questions of law arise:- 1. Whether the suit is not barred by limitation since it was filed beyond three years i.e., on 27 -3-1986 from the date of payment of endorsements Exs.A-4, A-7 and A-11 dated 27 -3-1998 in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) AL T 807?

2. Whether both the courts below have not committed error in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of A.P. Act 45 of 1987?

3. Whether the findings of both the courts below are correct in holding that disputed signatures on payment endorsements Exs.A-4, A-7 and A-11 are genuine, since both the courts arrived at a conclusion to that effect, without the aid of Hand Writing Expert?"

2. Sri Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing appellant as defendant had pointed out that apart from the substantial questions of law on the strength of which the Second Appeal had been admitted. Yet another substantial question of law would arise for consideration to the effect that, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action. The counsel also pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would maintain that as can be seen from the endorsements, the suit in relation to one transaction is within limitation. The counsel also had demonstrated before this court how the endorsements cannot be believed at all. While elaborating the submissions the learned counsel had taken this court through certain findings recorded by the appellate court which are in favour of the appellant and would maintain that having recorded such findings, confirming the findings of the trial Court cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as the burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove the endorsements, respondent/plaintiff should have taken these documents to a handwriting Expert and inasmuch as respondent/plaintiff failed to do so, the suit should have been dismissed. The learned counsel also pointed out that even though, two promissory notes were executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff one promissory note was executed in favour of a third party, and on the strength of such promissory note, the present plaintiff on the ground of being holder in due course, cannot joint such causes of action in this suit and hence, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action as well. On this ground also the Second Appeal to be allowed. Incidentally, the learned counsel pointed out to several of the factual findings and also had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the depositions and would contend that in the light of the evidence available on record, findings recorded by the appellate court are perverse, and on this ground also the Second Appeal to be allowed.

The counsel also relied upon certain decisions.

3. Per contra, Sri S.S. Bhatt, the counsel representing respondent/plaintiff would submit that the question of mis-joinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of parties would not arise at all. Even otherwise this question was not adjudicated at all before the court of first instance and also before the appellate court and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the courts below decreeing the suit with costs and hence, in a Second Appeal, the appellant-defendant cannot be permitted to raise such a ground. Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be an irregularity or illegality so as to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff on such a ground. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff pointed out to the relevant findings arrived at by the court of first instance and also by the appellate court and further pointed out that if the limitation to be reckoned carefully, all the suits are within limitation and clear positive findings had been recorded in this regard. The counsel also would submit that the view expr