LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-176

SHARANABASAPPA Vs. UMESH

Decided On November 27, 2015
SHARANABASAPPA Appellant
V/S
UMESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's appeal arising from a suit for recovery of money, based on a handloan agreement dated 11.05.2007. The respondent instituted the suit, to pass decree for recovery of Rs. 2,71,000/-, with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of loan and the costs. Suit was contested on multiple grounds. 4 issues were raised. During the course of trial, suit document handloan agreement dated 11.05.2007 was produced. Marking of the suit document was objected, on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped and is liable to be impounded. The said document was marked subject to the objection. At the conclusion of the trial, without deciding the objection raised on the said document, the suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to pay Rs. 2,71,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of availment of loan, till the date of realisation, to the plaintiff.

(2.) An appeal was filed by the defendant, assailing the decree, inter alia contending that the Trial Judge should not have received the suit document and admitted it in evidence as Ex.P1. It was contended that the suit document having been marked 'subject to objection', without passing the order on the objection, the decree passed is illegal. Considering the rival contentions, three points were raised for consideration. However, no point was raised with regard to the aforesaid material ground. Despite observing that the objection raised ought to have been decided first i.e., before admitting the document, it was erroneously concluded that objection was not raised while marking the document. The said finding being contrary to the record is perverse. The appeal was allowed in part and the impugned Decree was modified, entitling the plaintiff to interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit, till realisation.

(3.) This second appeal was filed to set aside the said decrees by raising substantial question of law with regard to the illegality committed in the matter of receiving the suit document in evidence and its marking as Ex.P1.