Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yenugayinti Venkateswarlu vs Puli China Eghaiah on 8 April, 2026
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010039462026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 138/2026
Between:
1. YENUGAYINTI VENKATESWARLU, S/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O 11/2, INDIRA
PRIYADARSHINI COLONY, SANGADIGUNTA,GUNTUR-522003.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. PULI CHINA EGHAIAH, S/o Veeraiah, aged about 71 years, R/o 11/3,
Indira Priyadarshini Colony, Sangadigunta,Guntur.52200
...RESPONDENT
Appeal under section ___________ against orderspleased to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 21-03-2023 passed in O.S.No.1085/2021 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur as confirmed by the judgment and decree, dated 23-09-2025 passed in A.S.No.32/2024 on the file of III Addl. District Judge, Guntur in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of order and decree, dated 23-09-2025 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2024 on the file of on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur and in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21-03-2023 passed in O.S.No.1085 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur as otherwise i will suffer irreparableloss and injury.
2Counsel for the Appellant:
1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
Date of Reserved : 07.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2026
Date of Upload : 08.04.2026
3
The Court made the following Judgment:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.1085 of 2021, before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of Rs.3,27,200/- being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes, dated 09.02.2019, execute by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The case of the respondent was that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondent on 09.02.2019 and had executed two separate promissory notes, for Rs.1,00,000/- each, to repay the same with interest @24% per annum. The respondent filed the above suit, on the ground that the said payments were not made despite a demand made for that purpose.
2. The appellant filed a written statement disputing the case of the respondent. The appellant contended that he had earlier obtained a loan from the respondent and had executed two promissory notes, dated 20.09.2018, for Rs.1,35,000/- each and on account of disputes which arose between the appellant and the respondent, on account of these promissory notes, the respondent had filed O.S.No.1157 of 2021 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of the same. Apart from this, the respondent having developed a grudge, against the appellant, had fabricated the promissory notes which were the subject matter of O.S.No.1085 of 2021.
Thus, the appellant had raised the ground of forgery as well as the ground that the suit itself was barred, under Order II, Rule-2 of Civil Procedure Code, on account of the earlier suit of O.S.No.1157 of 2021 filed by the respondent against the appellant.
4
3. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence produced by the respondent, who had examined himself as P.W.1, and the scribe and the attestor as P.Ws.2 & 3 and the evidence of the appellant, who examined himself as D.W.1 and another witness as D.W.2, held that the promissory notes were supported by valid consideration and genuine. On the question of the suit being barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the Trial Court held that the cause of action for the earlier suit and the cause of action for the present suit were different and consequently, Order II Rule 2 of CPC would not apply. On this basis, the Trial Court allowed the suit by way of a judgment/decree, dated 21.03.2023. Aggrieved by this judgment/decree, the appellant moved A.S.No.32 of 2024 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur. In the appeal, before the Appellate Court, the appellant again raised the ground of forgery and fabrication ofthe promissory notes. The Appellate Court, after reviewing the evidence, adduced before the Trial Court, had agreed with the conclusions of the Trial Court that the promissory notes are valid. The Appellate Court also agreed with the view of the Trial Court that the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC would not arise inasmuch as O.S.No.1157 of 2021 was filed on a different cause of action and O.S.No.1085 of 2021 was filed on a different cause of action. On this basis, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, by way of a judgment/decree, dated 23.09.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment/decree of the Appellate Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Second Appeal. 5
4. Sri A. Venkat Durga Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would contend, that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had mechanically invoked the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, without insisting upon proof of the financial capacity of the respondent lending a substantial sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. He would further contend that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had also erred in law in holding that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without considering the fact that mere production of promissory notes is insufficient when execution was specifically denied.
5. The respondent had produced both the promissory notes and had marked the said promissory notes as Exs.A1 & A2. The evidence of the respondent, is P.W.1 was further supported by the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3, who are the scribe and attestor of the said promissory notes. The appellant, except for raising a defense of forgery and fabrication, did not take any steps to demonstrate the same. In fact, it appears that the respondent, in the course of being cross-examined, had stated that he did not intend to get the disputed signatures compared with any admitted signature of his own. In view of the aforesaid statement of the appellant, in his cross-examination, the respondent had clearly discharged the burden of proof and the burden of proof had shifted to the appellant. As the appellant did not discharge this burden of proof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on the validity of the promissory notes. Once the said promissory notes are not under dispute, the only consequence would be a 6 judgment/decree for recovery of the amounts due under the said promissory notes.
6. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any substantial questions of law that would arise for consideration by this Court. Further, this Court also does not find any lacuna in the reasoning of the order of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court.
7. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Dated: 08.04.2026 BSM 7 THE HON'ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL No.138 of 2026 08.04.2026 BSM