P KOTESWARAMMA Vs. STAR ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. Koteswaramma, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 594 of 1984 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in the said suit dated 264-1994 dismissing the suit, had preferred the present appeal.

(2.) SRI Ganesh Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff had taken this Court through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also would maintain that to examine the plaintiff an application was moved and the said application was dismissed and also an application was moved relating to the priority of examination of witnesses and the said application was also dismissed. The learned counsel also would submit that however P. W. 1, the manager of plaintiff concern, and P. W. 2, the plaintiff's brother, were examined. On behalf of the defendants D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. D. W. 1 is the second defendant and D. W. 2 is the Manager of the Punjab National bank. The learned Counsel would submit that the signature in Ex. A3 and Ex. A4 and the very handwriting in Ex. A5 are that of the second defendant is not in serious controversy. The learned Counsel also would submit that the defence taken that it is in relation to some third parry transaction-Jagga Rao's transaction definitely cannot be believed in the light of facts and circumstances and would also maintain that the findings in this regard recorded by the trial Court definitely are absurd findings. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the documentary evidence available on record in general and Ex. B8-letter dated 8-2-1982 by the plaintiff's firm to the second defendant in particular and would submit that some suspicion was there in the mind of the trial Court in regard to the contents of the Ex. B8 and this suspicion is definitely an ill-founded suspicion, especially in the light of the clear proof available in relation to Exs. A3, A4 and A5. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through Ex. X series and the evidence of D. W. 2 in this regard. Ultimately, the Counsel would conclude that the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside and suit to be decreed as prayed for.

(3.) PER contra, the Counsel representing the respondents-defendants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the trial Court and would submit that in the absence of the evidence of the plaintiff, since there are certain admissions made by the P. W. 1 that she alone knows certain aspects, non-suiting of the plaintiff is well justified. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of d. W. 1 and D. W. 2 and Exs. B1 to B9 and also Exs. X1 to X7 in this regard.