LAKSHMI MANOHAR SARASWATHI Vs. KANTIPUDI RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil Revision Petition is directad against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku in lA.No. 1244 of 1980 In S.S.O.S.No.35 of 1980 dismissing a petition for review of the earlier order of the court dated 15-11-80.

(2.) The defendant is the petitioner. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 35 of 1980 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10.710/- towards principal and Interest on the foot of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner, invoking the summary jurisdiction under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner applied for leave to defend, in l.A.No.833 of 1980 under Order 37 Rule 3 sub-rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that there is a triable issue. She denied the execution of the promissory note and contended that the same was a forgery. By order dated 15-12-1980 leave was granted on condition the petitioner deposits half the suit costs within 15 days therefrom. No reasons were given for imposing terms. The petitioner thereupon filed I.A.No 1244 of 1980 to review the order dated 15-12-80 on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to impose terms when there is a triable issue in the absence of a finding that the plea raised by the defendant was not bona fide as held by the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Vs. Moo! Singh (1) A I.R 1958 Supreme Court, 321. She contended that the order was liable to be reviewed as there was an error apparent on the face of the record. While accepting the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the Supreme Court was not noticed, the Court reconsidered the matter and came to the same conclusion that imposition of terms was justified. It was observed that the plea raised by the defendant "appears to be" not bona fide as the scribe and the attestors have given affidavits in support of the promissory note. The Court also observed that failure to disclose the entire facts and reserving her right to disclose them in the written statement shows that the defence raised was not bona fide and the object appears to be to prolong the litigation. On these findings, the petition for review was dismissed on 2-2-1981. It is the validity of this order that is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition Subsequently on 17-2-1981 it appears that the suit was decreed on the basis of the allegations in the plaint.

(3.) Mr. S. Parvatha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submitted that the finding of the court that the plea raised by the defendant was not bona fide and with a view to prolong the suit is unjustified and based on no material. He also submitted that the subsequent decree being a consequential order is also liable to be set aside.