SUNKARA SRILAKSHMI Vs. SUDIREDDY SAROJINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notices were served on the respondent herein on 29-8-2002, the respondent has not chosen to put in her appearance through a counsel and hence this court proceeds to dispose of the matters on merits. As the point involved in both the matters is one and the same, both these revisions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The respondent herein i.e., the plaintiff, filed two suits for recovery of certain amounts basing on two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein (defendant). After settlement of issues, the petitioner/defendant filed interlocutory applications in those two suits for framing of an additional issue as to whether the respondent/plaintiff is a moneylender and she has any money lending licence. The Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, by his docket order dated 28-6-2002 dismissed those applications in the following manner:

(3.) Admittedly in the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant, it was stated that the plaintiff i.e., the respondent, is a big money lender and lending huge amounts for high interest without money lending licence. In the draft issues also which were submitted on behalf of the petitioner, an issue as to whether the plaintiff being moneylender can file the suit without money lending licence, was raised. In spite of the specific averment made in the written statement and also in the draft issues submitted on behalf of the defendant, the court below settled the issues but, however, the said issue as to whether the respondent is a money lender and the suit filed without any money lending licence is maintainable or not, was not framed.