In a Second Appeal regarding a suit for recovery of loan, the Single Judge held that interference with the impugned decree was impermissible as it involved appreciation of facts and evidence which had already been elaborately considered by the courts below.
Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
S.A .No. 583 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2011 passed in A.S.No. 135 of 2010 by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed in O.S.No. 953 of 2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.
Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit viz., O.S.No. 953 of 2008. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 1,16,600/-. The appellant-defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff for her family expenses on 9.3.2008 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for that she executed a promissory note at Guntur. As the appellantdefendant has not paid the amount due under the said promissory note in spite of repeated demands, respondent-plaintiff got issued legal notice on 25.8.2008 demanding to pay the amount due. The appellantdefendant received the said legal notice and got issued reply with all false allegations. Hence, the respondentplaintiff filed the suit and the trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,16,600/- with costs and subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of
decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-defendant filed an appeal viz., A.S.No. 135 of 2010 before the appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal with costs by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant and also perused the entire material made available on record.
I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court
It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by
this court.
The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
______________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
DATE: 10.06.2011 KA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal Court can interfere with the findings of facts and evidence appreciated by courts below under Section 100 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Defendant-Appellant
Plaintiff-Respondent
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
