T CHANDRI Vs. KAMBRATH KANARAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 5 of 1974 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode are the appellants in the second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,993.35 on the basis of a document which is described as voucher in the plaint as amended. The defendant in the written statement contended that he had not borrowed any amount. He also claimed the benefit under Act 1 of 1977 and Ordinance 9 of 1977. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the money was borrowed and that he was not entitled to the benefits of Act 1 of 1977 and Ordinance 9 of 1977. He further held that the suit document is not a voucher but a promissory note, that one of the stamps was not cancelled and that therefore the document is inadmissible in evidence. However, the trial Court took the view that the debt was an anterior debt and that the plaintiff was entitled to fall back on the original cause of action and in this view of the matter, the suit was decreed as prayed for.

(3.) On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to fall back upon the original consideration and the suit was dismissed. The learned District Judge relied on the observation contained in the order of this Court in C.R.P. No. 3813 of 1977. In the original plaint, the plaintiff described the document as promissory note. He filed a petition seeking to amend the plaint to substitute the word voucher for promissory note. That application was dismissed by the trial Court, but in C.R.P. No. 3813 of 1977, this Court allowed the application for amendment.