DUNABAINA VENKATA RAO Vs. KAPPISETTI NAGARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision is filed by the Revision Petitioner-defendant as against the Judgment in S.C.No.54/97 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

(2.) The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that the Revision Petitioner-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 4-11-1994 and executed a promissory note Ex.A-1 and inspite of repeated demands and despite the issue of notice, the office copy of which is marked as Ex.A-2 and the acknowledgment is marked as Ex.A-3, the amount was not repaid and hence the suit was instituted. The Revision Petitioner-defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiff is Ex-Municipal Councillor and she used to run chit fund business and he is a technician in Municipal Water Works Department and he joined in the said chit and the plaintiff used to obtain signatures in blank promissory notes as security for the chit amount and he fell due some amount, While so on one day, the respondent-plaintiff came to Municipal Water tank area and demanded to pay the balance of chit amount and he paid a sum of Rs.900/- in the presence of Boddu Appa Rao, who was examined as D.W-2 who is also another municipal employee and also a chit member. He had demanded for the return of blank promissory notes, but unfortunately later differences arose between the plaintiff and defendant and hence the suit was instituted. The plaintiff had examined herself as P.W-1 and the attestor was examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is the promissory note. Ex.A-2 is the office copy of the notice issued by P.W-1 to D.W-1 and Ex.A-3 is the postal acknowledgement and Ex.A-4 is dated 3-4-1997, the reply notice issued by the defendant. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined arid Exs.B-1, note book issued by the plaintiff was marked. The Court below had framed the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true and if so is it devoid of consideration? (2) To what relief ? The Court below after detailed appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence in paragraphs 6 to 11 had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount and accordingly decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful tenant (?) had filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri Ajay Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner had vehemently contended that the Court below had not properly appreciated Ex.B-1 and except some stray discussion there is no proper discussion relating to Ex.B-1. Apart from it, D.W-2 is an independent witness and his evidence should have been believed by the Court below and discarding his evidence on the ground that it is vague, is totally erroneous and unsustainable.