(Prayer: Appeal under section --- against ordershe appellant is filing this Memorandum of Second Appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree Dated 10.11.2025 in A.S No. 38 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GUNTUR, whereunder, confirmed the judgement and decree dt. 30-11- 2018 in O.S. No. 331 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR, passed against the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 5,55,164/- with subsequent interest @ 12PERCENT per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6PERCENT per annum from the date of decree till the. date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rs. 1,40,000/- Rs. 1,40,000/-), for the following among other

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 stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the judgement and decree dt. 30-1.1-2018 in O.S. NO. 331 of 2017 on the file of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur which was confirmed by the judgement and decree dt. 10-11-2025 in A.S. No. 38 of 2019 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge .Court, Guntur, pending disposal of the second appeal and in E.P. No. 49 of 2019, on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur and pass)

1. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.331 of 2017 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of Rs.1,40,000/-, said to have been borrowed by the appellant, along with the interest @24% per annum. The respondent also relied upon a promissory note which was marked as an Exhibit, in the Trial.

2. The appellate in his written statement did not deny the receipt of aforesaid Rs.1,40,000/- or the execution of the promissory note. The appellant contended that the said amount had been cleared by way of installments which the respondent used to collect on a monthly basis. The appellant contended that the entire debt had been cleared by 31.03.2016 itself and the respondent did not return the original promissory note and filed the present suit by taking undue advantage of the possession of the said promissory note.

3. The Trial Court, after going through the evidence, adduced on both sides, and the documents marked by the respondent, had held that the appellant, who had not chosen to mark any documents, had not proved the repayment of the said debt and decreed the suit by decree/judgment, dated 30.11.2018.

4. Aggrieved by the said decree/judgment, the appellant filed A.S.No.38 of 2019 before the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. This Appeal also came to be dismissed on 10.11.2025. In the appeal, the appellant had raised two grounds. Firstly, the ground of repayment of the debt and secondly, the ground of limitation. The Appellate Court did not accept the ground of the repayment as no evidence had been adduced in support of such contention. On the question of limitation, the Appellate Court took into the account the acknowledgment of part payments which extended limitation and held that the suit was within limitation.

5. Aggrieved by the said decree/judgment, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Second Appeal.

6. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not consider the issue, of limitation, in its proper perspective and should have dismissed the suit and/or allowed the First Appeal on the ground of limitation.

7. The appellant has not been able to point out any deposition or documents, to prove repayment of the debt. In such circumstances, this Court does not intend to interfere with the finding of fact given by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court that the contention of the appellant, regarding repayment of the loan, cannot be accepted.

8. The claim of the respondent was that the appellant had borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- on 02.05.2013 and executed a promissory note on 02.05.2013 itself. The suit was filed on 14.06.2017. The limitation, in the usual course, for filing the suit would have expired on 02.05.2016 and the suit would have been barred by approximately one year one month. However, the respondent while marking the promissory note Ex.A1, had also marked the endorsement of part payment of Rs.500/-, marked on the back of Ex.A1, on 31.03.2016. This would extend limitation for a further period of three years from that date. P.W.2, who is a witness to the execution of the promissory note, had also deposed that he had witnessed the appellant making the endorsement marked as Ex.A2. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had accepted the evidence of P.W.2 as his evidence was not shaken by the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellant. The Appellate Court also took into account, the fact that, the appellant had initially contended that he would get the signatures on Exs.A1 & A2 to be compared by an expert but did not take any steps in that direction.

9. It is clear that disputes, raised before this Court are issues of fact and there is no question of law that arises in the present Second Appeal. Apart from this, the appellant had not made out any case for this Court to disbelieve the findings given by the Trial Court/Appellate Court.

10. In the circumstances, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.