MUNISWAMAPPA ALIAS APPAYYANNA Vs. PUTTABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS.10 of 1966 on the file of the I Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore, has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment dt.23-9-1972 in the said suit. The respondents were the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,050 under a pronote dt.28-12-1962 said to have been executed by the defendants in his favour. He averred in the plaint that the defendants borrowed the said sum on executing the pronote and the consideration receipt, agreeing to pay interest thereon, and that the defendants are agriculturists within the meaing of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1928 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, he was entitled to institute the, suit by virtue of S.24 of the Act claiming the benefit of extended period of limitation . The defendants filed their written statement and contended inter alia that they had not executed the suit pronote, no valid consideration had passed under the pronote and that they were not agriculturists. The following issues were struck :

(2.) The learned Munsiff ordered that issue No.1 should be tried as a preliminary issue. He recorded evidence on issue No.1 only. He held on issue No.1 that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendants were agri- culturists within the meaning of the Act Though the remaining issues had not been yet taken up for trial he furtheir proceeded to record his finding on them and held that the suit was time barred. In the result, he dismissed the suit. This judgment is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) Sri V. Narasimhaiah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, urged that fee learned Munsiff has not drawn proper conclusions on the evidence Available and that fact is apparent on the mere reading of the evidence. He contended that the, finding on the question of status ought to have been in favour of the plaintiff. Sri K. Subba Rao the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants, raised a preliminary objection and contended that dismissal off the suit amounts to a decree and that is an appeasable decree and, therefore, the decree cannot be set aside in this revision petition which is instituted under the provisions of S.4 of the Act. He further contended that the proper remedy aTailaple to the plaintiff was to, file an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge against that decree, and secure appropriate reliefs.