LAKSHMI Vs. THATACBARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. She filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,000/- and A-2 on the allegation that defendants 1 and 2 had executed those mortgage deeds in her favour. The plea taken up by the defendants in the suit were (1) that the mortgage deeds were not fully supported by consideration (2) that the defendants had discharged the mortgage debts and (3) that they are rural artisans and as such entitled to the benefit of A. P. Act No. 7 of 1977. The defendants admitted the execution of the mortgage deeds,

(2.) The trial court after framing the necessary issues and putting the parties to trial found that the mortgage deeds were not fully supported by consideration. It, however, leejcted the plea of the defendant with regard to the discharge of the mortgage debts. Finally it gave the finding that the defendants are rural artisans, and as such they are entitled to the benefit of Act. No, 7 of 1977 and therefore dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court the plaintiff has preferred this revision.

(3.) Mr. M.S.K. Sastry the learned advocate appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that this Revision is not maintainable as the suit has been disposed of completely and a decree hat been passed in favour of the defendants. Therefore the only course open to the plaintiff was to prefer an appeal and not a revision. Mr. K. Srikrishna the learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that when no appeal can be preferred to the High Court, the High Court can call for the records u/sec. 115 of the C.P.C. and dispose of the case in Revision and therefore since the trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendants are rural artisans he wants to astack only that part of the judgment of the trial court with rcagard to Act No. 7 of 1977 and as such he can prefer this Revision.