SANNIDHI SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. BANGARU RAJESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.2009 in IA No.1469 of 2009 in OS No.191 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

(2.) THE defendants in the suit are the Revision petitioners.

(3.) IN support of the suit claim, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW1 apart from examining PWs.2 and 3. The defendant got himself examined as DW1 and while the matter was coming up for further evidence, the sole defendant Sannidi Satyanarayana Murthy died. The legal representatives of the sole deceased defendant were brought on record as defendants 2 to 8 and with the leave of the Court, they filed an additional written statement pleading inter alia that the plaintiff and her husband were moneylenders by profession and that they were doing moneylending business in the name and style of Vaibhav Bankers at Bhimavaram and that without maintaining any records they were grabbing the valuable properties of the public. It was also pleaded that the deceased defendant issued a reply dated 22.11.2002 to the suit notice alleging that the plaintiff was illegally doing finance business and that about 10 to 12 years back the plaintiff's husband obtained signatures of the 1st defendant on blank printed forms of promissory notes and though the entire debt was discharged the blank signed promissory notes were not returned. The defendants had also made a counter-claim against the plaintiff seeking prosecution of the plaintiff and other witnesses under Section 195 of Cr.PC for criminal conspiracy to grab the property of the defendant No.1 and for filing a false suit on the basis of a fabricated promissory note. They also made a further claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the plaintiff for the business loss suffered by the 1st defendant and another sum of Rs.5 lakhs for causing death of the 1st defendant and loss caused to his family members due to the illegal action of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 8 filed IA No.1469 of 2006 under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC with a prayer to frame the following additional issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is a money lender within the meaning of the definition of Money Lenders Act and Regulation? (2) Whether the interest charged is a reasonable or not as per Money Lending Act? (3) Whether the plaintiff is maintaining books and registers as required under Money Lenders and Pawn Brokers Act and Regulation? (4) Whether the money alleged as advanced is from the moneylending business or not?