JUDGMENT:

Defendants in O.S.No.293 of 2012 filed the present second appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 in A.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2016 in O.S.No.293 of 2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties to this judgement are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.S.No.293 of 2012.

3. Respondent, being the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.293 of 2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru for recovery of amount basing on promissory note.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that defendants approached the plaintiff in the year 2009 for financial help for higher studies of 3rd defendant and borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-on 11.08.2009 and executed the suit promissory note. They also agreed to repay the amount with interest @ 24% p.a. Since the defendants failed to repay the amount, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 23.07.2012 and filed the suit for recovery of amount.

5. Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments in the plaint. Defendants contended interalia that the suit promissory note is fabricated and is not supported by consideration. They further contended that they obtained educational loan from the Andhra Bank, R.R.Peta Branch, Eluru in 2009 for higher studies of 3rd defendant at U.S.A and the plaintiff stood as a guarantor for the said loan. At that point of time, he obtained signature of defendants on blank concurrent papers and stamp papers and filed the above suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and duly executed by the defendants?

(2) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 to 4. Exs.A-1 to A-4 were 1st marked. On behalf of defendants, defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

8. Trial Court on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit against defendants 1 to 3 for an amount of Rs.9,47,800/-with costs and subsequent interest on principal amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization.

9. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed appeal A.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru. The first appellate Court being the final fact finding Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 30.11.2021. Assailing the same, the present second appeal is filed.

10. Heard Mrs.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants.

11. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Courts below failed to consider that respondent/plaintiff has no capacity to lend the loan amount. She also would submit that Ex.A-1 is a fabricated document and the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A-1. She also would submit that the plaintiff stood as a guarantor for the educational loan availed by defendants and at that point of time, he obtained their signatures on blank stamp papers as security and with those papers, he concocted Ex.A-1. She would submit that the first appellate Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.339 of 2021 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and she thus, prayed to allow the second appeal by setting aside the judgments of Courts below.

12. Going by the pleadings and evidence, the case of the plaintiff is that defendants approached him in 2009 for financial help for the purpose of higher studies of 3rd defendant and obtained loan of Rs.7,00,000/-agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed the promissory note on the same day, however, defendants failed to discharge the amount and hence, he issued Ex.A-2 legal notice dated 23.07.2012 demanding and eventually filed the suit.

13. On the other hand, defendants con