M RAVI NAIDU Vs. G JAYASEKHAR NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present CRP is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in SC No.252 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent in the CRP who is the plaintiff in SC No.252/98 filed the suit against the revision petitioner-defendant for recovery of Rs.8,630/- with costs and future interest as prayed for from the date of suit till the date of realisation (the parties for the purpose of convenience will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant). The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff on 3-8-1995 for his family necessity and for business and executed a promissory note promising to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum, which is marked as Ex.A1. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands and also issuing a registered notice dated 10-6-1998 the defendant failed to repay the same. The office copy of the notice is marked as Ex.A2 and a postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.A3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of the promissory note and also denying doing any medical shop business and the defendant specifically pleaded that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act 4 of 1938, Act 45 of 1987 and Act 2 of 1990. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs sister was proposed to defendant to be given in marriage and subsequently the said proposal was dropped and since then misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff and defendant and just to wreak vengeance, the present suit was filed on the basis of a forged promissory note.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiff. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. PW1 is the plaintiff and PW2 is one of the attestors of Ex.A1 and DW1 is the defendant and DW2 is the scribe of the promissory note, Ex.Al. The Court below had framed the following point for consideration: