Y NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. M C NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also Mr. A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent.

(2.) Perused the material available on record. The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the judgment in A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The said appeal was filed as against the judgment in S.C.No.139 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The said small cause suit was filed for recovery of Rs.10,000/- due under a promissory note. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, on appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and DW-1 and also Ex.A-1, suit promissory note dated 1.6.1995 and Ex.B-1, copy of the charge sheet, had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff in the suit is entitled for the relief and decreed the suit. And aggrieved by the same, the first defendant in the suit had preferred A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, which was allowed so far it relates to the appellant therein i.e. the first defendant in the small cause suit. And aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in view of the specific remedy provided under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act'), as against the small cause decree, a regular appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC') is not maintainable.The learned counsel also had argued about the saving of limitation relating to the acknowledgment made by one person and its binding nature on others and also the erroneous findings recorded by the court below relating to the part payment of the debt.