P PADMANABHA RAO Vs. BATHINI SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Jyotheshwar representing Sri Laxma Reddy, the Counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the Counsel representing respondent.

(2.) Sri Jyotheshwar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner - defendant would submit that the suit is based on the promissory note but however on a careful reading of the recitals of the promissory note in question, the same may have to be treated as a bond and not as a promissory note and hence, the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal had totally erred in permitting the respondent - plaintiff to mark the said document in question as Ex.A.1.

(3.) Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent - plaintiff would maintain that the C.R.P. was filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. The learned Counsel also would contend that even otherwise though the payment by way of cheque was written on the promissory note it is not the case of the revision petitioner - defendant that either the cheque was dishonoured or the consideration in pursuance thereof was not received by him, but, on the contrary the defence is one of total denial. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend that in the light of the definitions of the promissory note both under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document in question would fall within the meaning of promissory note only. While concluding, the Counsel would contend that, at any rate, this question also may be decided while disposing of the suit itself.