KOTARI KASULAMMA Vs. GONTINI CHILUKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 17-6-1999 in S.C. No.40 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.

(2.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. She filed the suit on the basis of two promissory notes dated 25-8-1991 and 25-6-1991 (Exs.A-1 and A-3 respectively) said to have been executed by the husband of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On Ex.A-1 pronote, there is a part-payment endorsement dated 20-4-1992 (Ex.A-2). On Ex.A-3 pronote, there is a part-payment endorsement dated 20-4-1992 (Ex.A-4). She wanted to recover a sum of Rs. 5,500/- payable under the above two pronotes after deducting the part-payments made by the husband of the defendant. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the two pronotes as well as the two part payment endorsements. On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Trial Court found that the two pronotes as well as the two part-payment endorsements (Exs.A-1 to A-4) are true, valid and binding on the defendant. However, he dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) The Trial Court relied upon ajudgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Laxmaiah (died) per L.Rs. v. V. Venkateswara Rao (died) per L.Rs.. In that case, the suit pronote was executed on 2-11-1968. The suit was filed on 2-11-1971. There was no plea or issue to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation. However, in the second appeal before the High Court, it was contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Judge in Para 16 of her judgment held that since the suit was filed on 2-11-1971 beyond the period of three years, the suit is barred by limitation. No discussion was made by the learned Judge for giving a finding that the suit was barred by limitation.