Telangana High Court
CRP/639/2008 of Shimmula Bhoom Reddy Vs Tummannapally Gopal on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.639 of 2008 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment and decree in Small Cause Suit No.20 of 2004 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, by the defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,000/- on
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOC.R.P.639 of 2008
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:-
This revision is directed against the judgment and decree in SmallCause Suit No.20 of 2004 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge,Siddipet, by the defendant.
The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,000/- on theground that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,000/- andexecuted a pronote and in spite of repeated demands, the defendant didnot pay the amount and hence the suit.
The defendant contended that he has not borrowed any amount andthe pronote is a forged one.
On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and markedExs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and nodocuments marked.
After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior CivilJudge decreed the suit and aggrieved by the said judgment, the presentrevision is filed.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the defendant has borrowed the money andexecuted a pronote?
(2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lowercourt is sustainable?
(3) To what relief?
-POINTS:
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that theapproach of the lower court in finding fault with the defendant in notsending the document to an expert is not correct and it is for the plaintiffto prove the execution and passing of the consideration. He also pleadsthat the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be accepted. As could be seenfrom the cross examination of PW.1, it is clear that he is not in the habitof lending money but he himself drafted Ex.A-1 and one Sidda Reddy andanother Raghu were said to be present at the time of execution of thepronote under Ex.A-1 and the presence of Sidda Reddy is not reflected inEx.A-1. Apart from the above fact, the cross examination of PW.1 does not show as to how he is interested in fabricating a document against thedefendant. The evidence of PW.2 shows in cross examination that son ofplaintiff is his classmate and the defendant and plaintiff were not presentat the time when he reached the house of the plaintiff. According to him,none else was present and he does not know the defendant earlier. Asagainst this evidence, the defendant could not say in his evidence as towhat was the reason for the plaintiff to fabricate a document and toextract money from him. From the own evidence, it is quite clear that hisfather has taken loan LMB and he has discharged it. PW.1 is evidentlyan employee of the said Bank. The defendant himself has obtained a loanbut clearly stated that he knows the plaintiff who was the Supervisor. Merely because, the defendant has denied the execution of the pronote,the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be discarded. The execution andpassing of the consideration was proved by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2and there are improbabilities to discard the witnesses and the learnedSenior Civil Judge has rightly decreed the suit. I do not find any reasonto interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
_______________________N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
31-12-2010TSNR