IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 431/2025 Between:

J Pradeep Kumar Reddy ...APPELLANT AND Palle Subba Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SHAIK MD UMAR ABDULLAH Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following:

Reserved on 17.03.2026 Pronounced on 24.03.22002266: APHC:23962 Uploaded on 24.03.2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.431 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025, in A.S.No.87 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2023, in O.S.No.415 of 2018, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.415 of 2018.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.415 of 2018 on the file of the on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, with a prayer for recovery of Rs.10,53,200/- basing on two suit promissory notes dated 02.03.2017 &

07.07.2017 with subsequent interest and for costs.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, after conclusion of trial, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.87 of 2023, before the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.415 of 2018, is as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.03.2017 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff further pleaded that again on 07.07.2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff further pleaded that despite his repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the debt under the promissory notes and postponed the same on some pretext or the other, and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

7. The case of the defendant, as per the averments in the written statement is as follows:

The defendant pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed any promissory notes. The defendant further pleaded that the alleged two promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- dated 02.03.2017 and Rs.5,00,000/- dated 07.07.2017 respectively were created and forged by the plaintiff with an intention to harass the defendant and to extract money from him, and further pleaded that the plaintiff never demanded that the defendant repay the amount in respect of the alleged two suit promissory notes debts and, as such, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the suit two promissory notes dated 02.03.2017 and

07.07.2017 are true, valid and binding upon defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for? and

3) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and no document was