KANIPAKAM KANNAIAH Vs. SUDHALA SANKARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed OS No. 16 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti against the appellant for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note, dated 2.3.2000. It was stated by the respondent that being acquainted with him, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 57,700/- and he did not repay the same in spite of repeated demands. His further case was that when he went to the appellant, residing at Chittoor, for repayment of the amount, he paid a sum of Rs. 100/- on 1.3.2003, acknowledging the debt covered by the promissory note. He ultimately prayed for a decree for the suit amount. The appellant filed a written statement. It was pleaded that he borrowed Rs. 7,700/- from the respondent through Ex.A1 and that the respondent has clandestinely added the figure '5' before the amount. He denied the endorsement, Ex.A2, dated 1.3.2003. In addition to that, the appellant has stated that the respondent got issued a notice, Ex.B1, on 22.10.2003 by taking a false plea that a sum of Rs. 100/-was paid on 1.2.2003 and still, he did not make any reference to Ex.B1 either in the plaint or in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 13.2.2007. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed AS No. 54 of 2007 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. The appeal was allowed on 31.8.2010. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no justification on the part of the lower appellate Court in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court. He contends that a clear discrepancy exists as to the very making of endorsement, Ex.A2, and read in the context of Ex.A1, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. He contends that if Ex.A2 is excluded, the suit is barred and if Ex.A2 is compared with Ex.B1, it emerges that there is a clear discrepancy leading to a situation where the suit is barred by limitation.