POLANA JAWHARLAL NEHRU Vs. MADDIRALA PRABHAKARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment, dtd. 28/4/2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada ("Additional Senior Civil Judge" for short), whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,76,000.00 basing on the promissory note, dtd. 8/12/2012 against the defendant, decreed the same for a sum of Rs.13,76,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 from the date of suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(2.) The parties to this Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000.00 on 8/12/2012 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the promissory note debt, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.377251, dtd. 2/7/2014 of Canara Bank, Venkateswarapuram Branch, Vijayawada, for Rs.10,00,000.00 towards part payment of the promissory note debt by stating that he has sufficient funds in the bank account and requested the plaintiff to present it. Believing the representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff presented the cheque on 2/7/2014 in State Bank of India, Labbipet, Vijayawada and it was returned as "funds are insufficient". The plaintiff communicated to the defendant about the factum of dishonour. The defendant rendered himself liable for prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In response to the dishonour of cheque, on 28/7/2014, the plaintiff got issued a statutory notice demanding the defendant to call upon him to repay the cheque amount and the defendant having received the notice, issued a reply, dtd. 12/8/2014 with false allegations. As the defendant did not choose to comply the demand, the plaintiff filed C.C.No.1071 of 2014 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, which is pending. The present suit is filed basing on the promissory note for recovery of the amount. Hence, the suit.