CHINNAKANNU PILLAI ALIAS NARAYANASAMY PILLAI Vs. RAMASAMY PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed by the defendant against the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A. S. No. 10 of 1984 on his file. It is seen that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1 ,060 with subsequent interest and costs. The allegations in the plaint are that the respondent-plaintiff has sold casuarina trees in Tuttipetvely, Villianur commune, Pondicherry, for Rs. 3 ,750 about six months prior to the filing of the suit, that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,750 towards the said sale consideration and that the balance is due and since in spite of repeated demands he did not pay the amount, the suit was filed.

(2.) THE said suit was resisted by the revision petitioner herein who would deny the allegation that the plaintiff sold casuarina trees to him. He further stated that it was not sold for Rs. 3 ,75 0 as alleged, that the respondent has sold the casurina seedlings raised in an extent of 2 kanies and 20 kuzhies in R. S. No. 51/6 and 50 kuzhies in R. S. No. 52/2, that he did not sell the casurina trees and that only the seedlings alone were sold for a sum of Rs. 2,790. It is also stated that the defendant did not cut and remove the seedlings as he wanted further time since he could not arrange for transportation and expected rain, that he also paid the entire consideration of Rs. 2,790 and that there is no amount due as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the plaintiff sold the same to a third party by name Jayaraman after the defendant issued a reply notice. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THIS petition having been set down this day for being mentioned in the presence of the said Advocates the Court made the following order: The matter is listed to-day for being mentioned. While disposing of the above revision, this Court directed the Court below to return the appeal memo to the respondent for presenting the same as revision before the said court and on presenting the same as revision, the court below was further directed to dispose of the same on merits. Now it is brought to the notice of this Court that this court alone has got jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal memo as revision and dispose of the same. Hence, the order dated 5. 12. 1988 is modified to the extent that the respondent shall present the appeal memo as Revision before this Court for disposal. In other aspects the order dated 5. 12. 1988 will hold good.