Telangana High Court
CRP/1403/2006 of Y.Jayachandra Reddy Vs M.Thikka Swamanna on 28 December 2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1403 of 2006 BETWEEN Y. Jayachandra Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND M. Thikka Swamanna. ...RESPONDENT
INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1403 of 2006
BETWEEN
Y. Jayachandra Reddy.
AND
M. Thikka Swamanna.
... PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C. PRAKASH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Petitioner is the plaintiff, who instituted a suit for recovery of anamount of Rs.4,267/- before the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, as a smallcauses suit, numbered as SCS.No.3 of 2005. In the said suit, the respondent/defendant filed a written statement admitting the execution ofEx.A1 promissory note as well as part payment endorsement Ex.A2. TheCourt below, on consideration of evidence, however, came to the conclusionthat the promissory note is not supported by consideration and dismissedthe suit. This revision, therefore, is directed against the said decree dated 19.09.2005.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent, thoughserved, nobody appears on his behalf.
3. The judgment of the Court below itself shows that the part paymentsagainst the said promissory notice were admitted in the written statementapart from admitting the execution of the said promissory note. In the teeth ofthe these admissions, therefore, it was not open fro the defendant to contendthat the plaintiff must prove passing of consideration before the promissorynote inasmuch as the presumption under Section 118 of the NegotiableInstruments Act apply.
4. Attention of this Court has been drawn to similar matter consideredand allowed by this Court in CRP.No.5666 of 2006 dated 15.09.2011.Identical reasons for rejection of the suit were not approved by this Court inview of the admissions of the defendant and the decree of the trial Court wasreversed by decreeing the suit.
In the present case also the written statement coupled with the evidence ofD.W.1 clearly shows that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff deserves tobe decreed, as the defendant admits the execution of the promissory noteand part payment and is liable for the suit claim.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the Judgment ofthe lower Court is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum ofRs.2,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promissory notetill the date of decree after deducting the part payment of Rs.100/- made on20.09.1998 and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date ofsuit till the date of realisation. The plaintiff will be entitled for the costs throughout proportionately. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shallstand closed.
December 28, 2012DSK
_____________________VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J