Telangana High Court
CRP/6197/2009 of M. Surya Prakash Vs M/s. Vishnu Chits Pvt.Limited on 31 December 2009
JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6197 OF 2009 Friday, the Thirty First day of November, Two Thousand and Nine Between M.Surya Prakash Petitioner AND M/s. Vishnu Chits Private Limited, Rep. Office 1-4, Upper Ground Floor, Liberty
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6197 OF 2009
Friday, the Thirty First day of November,Two Thousand and Nine Between M.Surya Prakash
AND
Petitioner
M/s. Vishnu Chits Private Limited,Rep. Office 1-4, Upper Ground Floor,Liberty Plaza, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
C.R.P. NO. 6197 OF 2009
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.
ORAL ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India is preferred by the first defendant inO.S. No. 192 of 2007 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by theorder dated 10.11.2009 dismissing I.A. No. 915 of 2009filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking to return theplaint to the plaintiff – first respondent herein forpresentation before proper court.
The first respondent herein filed the above suit forrecovery of a sum of Rs.1,05,902/- towards the sum duefor 17 instalments out of 40, of a chit transaction at therate of Rs.5,000/- per instalment.
It is case of the subscriber - petitioner herein that thefirst respondent company cannot claim any amount morethan the ledger account and since the ledger accountshows only a sum of Rs.100/- as due, the plaint is liable tobe returned to the company for presentation before propercourt having pecuniary jurisdiction; whereas it is the caseof the first respondent company that the sum of Rs.100/-is shown as due for the earlier instalment in the ledgerinasmuch as the cheques issued by the petitioner weredishonoured and the charges are debited to his accountand, as such, the petitioner is not right in contending thatas the first respondent company has shown a sum ofRs.100/- as due, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
The court below dismissed the above applicationobserving that the amount of Rs.100/- shown due is inrespect of a particular instalment towards bank charges debited to the account of the petitioner for thedishonoured cheque. Apart from this, the court belowfurther observed that the account further shows someamounts due for earlier instalments for which the cheuqesissued by the petitioner herein were dishonorued andsimilar charges are debited to the account of thepetitioner.Aggrieved thereby the present Civil RevisionPetition is filed by the first defendant in the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that theplaint is liable to be returned inasmuch as the ledgeraccount maintained by the first respondent herein showsbalance to be paid by the petitioner as only Rs.100/- and,as such, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Courtcannot be invoked.
As observed by the court below, column No.12 ofthe Statement of Account, required to be maintained bythe first respondent company, in compliance of Rule 25 ofthe A.P.C.F. Rules, relates to the amount due by thesubscriber/petitioner herein pertaining to a particularinstalment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend thatthe said amount represents his entire liability or the sumdue in discharge of the prized chit. It is further case of thecompany that the petitioner had paid only 23 instalmentsout of 40 and he is liable to pay the sum equivalent to 17defaulted instalments, which is not controverted by the petitioner. Having gone through the entire materialavailable on record, I do not find any illegality orirregularity in the order impugned.
Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and isaccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
December 31, 2009MAS
____________________
Justice T. Meena Kumari