RAGHAVENDRA RICE MILLS Vs. ANANT KABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Fourth Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 29-10-1999 passed in LA. No.1010 of 1999 in O.S. No.1845 of 1997 under which the application of the petitioner defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) C.P.C. for leave to defend the suit was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 C.P.C. for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,47,325/-. Summons for judgment were served on the defendants upon which the defendants filed the petition in question for leave to defend the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 used to supply rice and rice bran to the plaintiffs by taking advance and in the course of these transactions they became due in a sum of Rs.60,000/- by 6-7-1993. As the petitioner-Company was irregular in payment of the amounts, the plaintiff decided to discontinue the business with the petitioner and there was mutual agreement under which the defendants agreed to repay the balance of Rs.60,000/- treating it as hand-loan with interest at three per cent per month from 6-7-19993. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.16,000/- and for the balance of Rs.71,000/- a promissory note was executed agreeing to pay the amount within two months. This amount was not paid. Hence the suit. After service of summons for judgment the defendant No.1 applied for leave to defend the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated that the defendants have a strong case to win. As noted by the learned Senior Civil Judge except this there was no other averment constituting a ground for defending the suit and no other contentions were raised. It is pointed out that the execution of the pronote was not denied and the earlier transaction culminating in the execution of the pronote was also not denied. No other substantive contention was raised. The learned Judge dismissed the petition holding that no other substantive contention was raised constituting a ground for allowing the petitioner to defend the suit. This order is now being challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that though in the affidavit the defendants may not have raised specific issues but written arguments have been filed on behalf of both sides before the Court below. This fact is not disputed in the course of hearing in this Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the written arguments various questions were raised by way of ground for defending the suit. A copy of the written arguments filed on behalf of the defendants has been filed with this petition. It would be seen that among other questions raised in the written arguments filed by the defendant No.1 there is one question relating to insufficiency of stamp on the promissory note relied on by the plaintiff along with other questions.