AS/25/2003 of A. Chandramma Vs K. Sathyam on 29 December 2022

JUDGMENT:

'l'hrs r1: rr :rl is l-ilcd argrlin:lt thc ,.ludgm'nl ir rrt [),]cr( ( ofthe trial Cor rr i r [().S.No.218 ]ol 1<)c)2 datcd 27. 1 .2r) l.

)-. f']l:rinlrtl i]cr:l strit for recor.cn ol amouirt ol ]i s.li 2,0O0/along rvrth ir lcrcst :lt thc ratt. of 36"1' pcr arlnr,lrr. [)lairtiff]t--xamincr] lrir Lsr:tl as I).W.I arrrl marked Ii xs 1\. 1 L() A3 r.e,promisscrl, r-,rtt, officc aol)y ol the lcgal Itot ic( an, I t'r:tulttedpostal covc:r. I c also cxa;nined :ltlcstor as l'.\4,.2. ['l'lr, ]d<:'cnclirntNo.4 rvas; c;<:r aint d as [).W. 1. ['l']rc ]tri.rl Cour L c or:s li:ring l]recvidertce orr r: :r. rd ancl :rrglrments of both sidcs clr': 1t()(l thc suitrvith r:osts k [- ]IRs.52,OO0/ ag:rinst lhe cstatc ::t tlre 'rr-srrlef'enrlant rr t.I c harcls ol dcfcrrdant Nos.2 to [,1 ]irrrrl futr.rcintercst is ;ir:L rl rd at thc rirtc o1'606 pcr anrlurn or-r Fl:r..2ii,000/lrom thc clirlt: r1 suit till thc datc of rcalizatir>n Aqg1n,-,,t d by thesard order [)r(: ie ][ appcal is prcfcrred by thr: d:fcn,1 rr l Nos..2 to4 and m:,irr11 o'rt,lndcd LI-urt tbt: promissor_r,rot( ,\:r., c>ccrrl,:dor-r 24.05 l(-)3(, uncl thr: suit hars to bc filed u.'it rir lLr', t' rcars ofIrmitation i.r . :l.Or.1')92. br-tt it is lilccl on I I O(r. [()-'.1 ]:rs su,'hit is bar-t'cl 1v lirnitatic,n. Thl purport ol ile( tior [.1 ]ol thc Limitation Act was wrongly understood. .lhough issue No.S isframed regarding the necessity of defendant to borrow thc suitamount, it was not discusscd and contcs[ed, as such the orderof the trial Court is to bc set aside and it is to be rcmitted back.The rate of interest aL 360/o pcr annum is exorbitant and the suitoughtto have dismissed for mis-joinder ol parties. The trialCourtheld that there is no causc o[ action in the suitTherefore, requested the Court to set asidc the Judgment andDecree in O.S.No.48 of 1992 dated 27.11.2OO2.

3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire record.

4. Plaintiff stated that he is wcll acquainted that he is wcll acquainted acquainted with thedefendant No.l. Out of said acquaintancc thc defendant No.lapproached him for hand roan or Rs.25,0oo/- for his fam yneeds and business necessities and agreed to repay the samewith interest at the rate of Rs.3/_ per hundrcd per month.Considering his request, he paid the said amount on24.O5.),9a9 and defendant No.l had executed a promissory notepromising to rcpay thc said amount with intercst at the rate ofRs.3/ per hundred per month and also executed a receipt Plaintiff stated that he is wcll acquainted that he is wcll acquainted acquainted with the a

ackno('ir clgrrrl -h,' rect'ipt ol- rhc said arno lnl. -irtcr u'henricl-e nclzrnt lJl | ;. ilccl to repav thc said am )uill,lts lrrlr: ofrcl)catcd dr:ln,nds. he got issut:d lcgai notict orr il l.Ozf . IC-i()2Flve r-r aftcrv.,r C ;, the dcfencl:rnt No. I obtarncd sr nrc' olhcranrounls frr:rrr l-rir.r', and it is not thc subjcct nl:lt[cr [(,l ]tlrc striIHc state,l lhi t dr-'lendar-rl No. I has got sull-icje nt nreans todischargr th( rLrit:lmoulrL, but u'ith a malafidr intr:n ror-r onlr. toharass hinr :L Ld to cause irr-cpzrrable loss, h r-' rs .rr ading thepilYm€'n[: ]'11'. ['clorc ]requcsted the Court to gr. nt Rs .,2,0O07

5. llr: also r;t:LLed lhat as t hc t}-rrce y r:rls r:r:pir t:d bv23.05. l()()2, Ls hlcd durrng summer vac Ltion I t:lorr: thr:v:rcettion Jorrr i nri sougfrl for arlachment of protr)( r it's oI Lltcdc(-endant N,r L,clcre .Jurlgmcnt. As defendant No- I i:. nr morr-',his u,ili: a r-rd s,, ,ns brought on record as lcgal rcpres( r tativcs olthc <1e li:ncla:rl No.l. ['I'hcrcforr:, ]rcquesl-ccl rhr Courl [o grar]tdcr:ree rn i rvtur of plainliff agalnst thc [( ]stalo [,rI]dcfend:rnt Nos. I to 4 and also requcsted for lirtr rrc Lnt( rcs.

6. 'l'hc app llarts Counscl mainly contcn, lccl t1' r r;lrit isbarrcd br lin: atic,n as it is not liled bcforc the r pr()llrialr'Court it is rrot nra ntainable . ['l'hc1. ]21se r:onLerrdccl [I ]rt ;uit is I

hled before the Vacation Court (District Court) and thus it is notfiled before appropriate CourL, but thc said conlention was notfiled before appropriate CourL, but thc said conlention was notraised either in the Wril tcn Statcment or in the appcal groundsof this court and they only came up n,ith the said contention atthe time of arguments. As the said plea was not taken up at thethe time of arguments. As the said plea was not taken up at theearlier point of timc, he cannot raise it at this stage. They alsocontended that suit was not filed within threc years r.e, on orthrec years r.e, on orbefore 23.05.1992, it is filed on tt.06..tgg2.

7. Admittedly, there was si_immer vacation lbr Courts from01.O5.1992 to 14.06.1992 (both clays inclusive) and wasreopened on 15.O6. 1992. ln fact, suit was hlcd during vacationbefore the Vacation Court of Mahabubnagar on I t.06.1992.Even when it was returne d with objection regarding limitation,it was resubmitted on 15.06.1992 reopening day, as such thetrial Court observed that thc suit was well within Lhe limitationas per Section 4 of Limitation Act. .lhe learncd Counscl for thedefendants argued that thc Section 4 is not applicable to thesuits basing on promissory note and it applies only forinjunction and othcr suits but thc said argumenr was held asnot proper and it was held that Scction 4 applies to the suitsbased on the promissory notes also. Though thc Judgment was

I)ron.)LU [('c(:1 ][r\ ][[]re ][t|ial ][Cr;urt ][oi ][27.11.2OO-), ][iL;r1,,'lLl ][r''lts ][1;lecl]on O7.0 l.2l(, ] :rnd thus tlrt:re is also dclay [irr ][fil;Lrl ][thc ][rr;t1trt:rl.]It sr:cm:; llr. he clclrtr' pt tiLion \\ras [(rondort ]cl ztrtrl thr tt1-rltciriuas adrrittr',- l,>ng back thcrefort: it ntlcd nol bc l() <a( lnL(l atllris st.rlte. .,\r o!h,rr tlrgLrme rlL o[ the appcllanLs [(]olllISC ][is ]that(lro intcrcsl ir t'xccssive. ['lfrc ]ratr: of inte rest u as di;lrtttcd in tl'tcWrittcn SL:rL( rrcnL lilcd bl the lirst dclenda rt or .r8.C(1.1995.l'hc tria Clrr,-l grantcd intcrcst as claimed t Il [rfr( ]rlrtq oi [thcr]sLri1, buL ILrt l:e intcrcst ol 69i, per annurl u'i:s tlretrrlccl ollRs.25,0O0,/ r-r;m Lhr: datc ol suit till lhc clat,: o[ rl, Lizatiott, assur:h 1-his [(--or ]rl finds no ilJcgalitv or inlirmit.y [Ln ]ll'( [( ][trclrr ]ol lhctriirl Cor r1 rr I it 1ec(ls no interlcrence.

In 1f c r('sult, thr: :rppeal is dismisstd c,r rl rmirtg '.ht:Jlldgmorl ,rn I Dr:cree c,l thc tlizrl Court in [().S.1'1,r. ]lE ri [19192]clrrlr:d 27 11. . )O2 ['I'hcrc ]sh:-rll bc no ordcr :ls lo [('()sLi]

Misc:erlli n [jous ]pelitions pcnding, if rnv. '.; r:rl sLandclosed.

To,

SD/. I,(.SIIINIVASA RAO.IOIAIT REGISTRAR, tl)SiECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

1. TheSenror Ci 'il Judge at IVlahabunagar ((with recordsl2 OneCC'o llt:l I LAKSHN/ll NARAYANA, Advoc:rte [Ot)t,C]3 OneCC'o S;Fl \/ IvIANOHAR RAO. Advocate [OF'UC]4. TwoCD [tlofrie-. ][,]BN42 OneCC'o llt:l I LAKSHN/ll NARAYANA, Advoc:rte [Ot)t,C]3 OneCC'o S;Fl \/ IvIANOHAR RAO. Advocate [OF'UC]4. TwoCD [tlofrie-. ][,]BN4

bev

HIGH COI.,,F I

DATED:291' 212022

-=I,,i .'t[ jIAIL ][O]:f/(,l/;:tr\\[NB]oa/\,,.i,ut i.JUDGMENT

AS.No.25 ol 2003

DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOLJT COSTS

61, [t-1])6,r

HIGII COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT NO: 25 OF 2003

Between:

1. AChandramma, Wo. late Ramulu, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Housewife2.4Prasad, S/o. late Ramulu, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture3.ASrinivas, S/o. late Ramulu, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture2.4Prasad, S/o. late Ramulu, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture3.ASrinivas, S/o. late Ramulu, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture (All are residents of D.No.1-7-5513, Old Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar)

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 To 4

AND

K,.Sathyam, S/o. Sanjeevaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, Resident ofMdhabubnagar proper

...RE''.NDENT/'LATNTTFF

Appeal Under Section 96 of C P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated27-11-2002 made in O.S.No.48 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Senior CivilJudge at lvlahabunagar.

ORDER: This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in theSuit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI J.LAKSHMINARAYANA, Advocate forthe Appellants and of SRI V.MANOHAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondent.

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1 . That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is Dismissed

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at lt/ahabunagar2. Two CD Copies2. Two CD Copies BM

wp

HtGH COUIIT

DATED:291 11112022

DECREE

AS.No.25 ol 2003

DISMISSIN( HE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

\q,,7,t)[,\r]wv