R PRAKASH Vs. D M RADHAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs revision from the judgment and decree dated 30th june, 1994, passed by the VII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, bangalore in SCC Suit No. 4951 of 1991 which plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,400/- with interest due up-to-date, that is in total for a sum of Rs. 7,000/ -.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS case was that on 26-5-1990, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,400/- by executing the pronote exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. That in spite of repeated demands and requests and legal notice dated 14-1-1991 and 18-4-1991, which were served on the defendant, the defendant failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff has also alleged, by way of amendment, that on the same day 26-5-1990 defendant had also borrowed anather sum of Rs. 5,000/- and executed another pronote and receipt. The defendant in the original written statement asserted that he had paid Rs. 2,400/- that is Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and rs. 400/- by cash, in relation to that transaction. Defendant admitted that he had taken loan of Rs. 5,400/- and stated in the written statement that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by cheque bearing No. 351506, drawn on the State Bank of India and paid a sum of Rs. 400/- in cash. That is a total sum of Rs. 2,400/- had been paid off and hence he is due in a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. The sum of Rs. 3,000/- which according to the defendant was admittedly due, has been paid in the Court. In the amended paragraph 2-A, which has been added in the plaint, it has been averred that on 26-5-1990, the defendant had borrowed another sum of rs. 5,000/- as loan and executed a demand pronote in favour of the plaintiff and that he has discharged the sum of Rs. 5,400/- with interest by paying of Rs. 3,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and Rs. 400/-by cash. He had alleged that suit pronote amount had been paid off and the plaintiff had returned that pronote to the defendant and produced the photostat copy thereof and defendant denied it.

(3.) THE Trial Court framed the following issues: