NELAVAYI VENKATARAMANA REDDY Vs. VENUMBAKA RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree fn AS. 58/78 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge. Gudur reversing the judgment and decree in 0 S No. 71/77 on the file of the District Munsif, Sullurpet. That was a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 876/- being the principal and interest due on the foot of a promissory note dated 22-1-1976. That suit was instituted on 1-81977 that is after the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 which came into force on 1-2-1977. The plea of the defendant was one of discharge. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge. The only question in that Appeal was whether the plea of discharge was true. No question of law arose in the case. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the Court below, the petitioner herein has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the sub-section (4) of S.96 C P.C., which was inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976, no appeal lay against the decree of the Distric Munsif. Section 96 of the Amended Act reads as follows:- "96. (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall like from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. (2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed exparte. (3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties. (4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognisable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees. It would be seen that except on a question of law, against the decree in a suit of small cause nature when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- no appeal lies. THE suit for the recovery of the amount due on a promissory note is undoubtedly a suit of the nature cognizable by courts of small cause when the value of it does not exceed Rs.3,000/-. THE plea of discharge is one of fact. Admittedly, no question of law arose either in the trial court or in the appellate Court. As such no appeal lay against the decree before the Subordinate Judge. This amendment applies to all suitsfiled subsequent to 1-2-1976. THE Subordinate Judge, was therefore, not competent to entertain the appeal He ought to have returned the Memorandum of appeal for presentation to proper court. When the court found that no question of law arises and the only question to be considered was whether the evidence let in with regard to plea of discharge should be accepted or not, it should have held having regard to sub-section (4) of S.96 C P.C. that no appeal lay against the decree in O.S. 71/76 on the file of the District Munsif. THE Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge now under revision are, therefore, set aside and the Subordinate Judge is directed to return the Memorandum of Appeal for presentation to proper court. This revision petition is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs.