MANNAM SUBBARAO Vs. GORANTLA CHINA VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thejudgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chirala in A.S.No.2 of 1984, dated 23-3-1987 allowing the appeal and setting aside the dismissal of the suit by the learned DistrictMunsif, Chirala inO.S.No.51 of 1980, dated 12-12-1983 are in challenge. The appellant is the Defendant No.l in the suit. The Respondent No.l is the plaintiff and Respondent No.2 is the Defendant No.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.8,092/- with costs and current interest, etc. from Defendant No. 1 based on the Promissory Note, Ex.A. 1, dated 21-8-1978 for a consideration of Rs.6,850/- agreeing to pay it with interest at 12 per cent per annum on demand but failed to pay it inspite of demand. The plaintiff claimed that initially Defendant No.2 authorised, him, to collect the amount on his behalf by making an endorsement Ex.A.3, dated 10-1-1980 and assigned the Promissory Note in his favour for a consideration of Rs.7,000/-and endorsed on the Promissory Note as per Ex.A.2, dated 14-1-1980. The Defendant No.l admitting the execution of the Promissory Note denied the passing of the consideration underthe suit Promissory Note as it was said to have been brought about in connection with the previous transaction under Ex.B. 1, dated 20-2-1975, that Exs.A.2 and A.3 were not genuine and Ex.A.2 was brought about between the plaintiff and father-in-law of Defendant No.2 to change thejurisdiction of the Court from Ongole to Chirala. Furthermore, Defendant No.2 pleaded that he is a farmer within the meaning of Act No.7 of 1977 to be relieved of the debt. These issues were framed by the learned District Munsif:- 1. Whether the suit pronote is a renewal of earlier pronotes and if so whether the defendant is an agriculturist and interest has to be scaled down from the origin? 2. Whether the plaintiff is not aholder in due course of the suit pronote, and if so, whetherthis Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 3. To what relief? The plaintiff examined himself as PW.2, examined Defendant No.2 as per PW.1 and also examined the scribe of Ex.A.2 as per PW.3. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 Exs. A.1 to A.3 were the documents marked for the plaintiff. Having heard both the sides and with the materials before him the learned District Munsif disbelieved the genuineness of Exs. A.2 and A.3, rejected the defence of Defendant No.1 that the suit pronote is not supported by consideration and rejected his plea that he is a small farmer but dismissed the suit on the ground that Exs.A.2 and A.3 were notproved and were not found to be genuine. When the matter was taken before the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal in A.S.No.2 of 1984, he disagreed with the learned District Munsif regarding the genuineness of Exs.A.2 and A.3, set aside the finding of the learned District Munsif in regard to the same and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif and by allowing the appeal decreed the suit by allowing the costs throughout. Thus, Defendant No. 1 having aggrieved by such a decision has come up with this appeal.

(2.) Mr. P. Sreerama Murthy, learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the grounds of appeal has raised the following contentions while challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subord inate Judge:- 1. The finding of the learned District Munsif that Exs.A.2 and A.3 were not genuine was based upon the admission of the plaintiff himself and also the evidence of PW.3 that Exs.A.2 and A.3 were brought about on the same day whereas they bore different dates viz., 10-1-1980 and 14-1-1980, 2. The learned Subordinate Judge was not right in propounding the law that Ex.A.2 rescinded or cancelled Ex. A.3 ignoringthe fundamental lawthat such endorsements like Exs.A.2 and A.3 should be presumed to have come into existence in accordance with the seriatim of the dates on which they come into existence, 3. The learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in decreeing the suiteven when he came to the conclusion that the learned District Munsif was wrong in not returning the plaint for presentation to a proper Court, if Exs. A.2 and A.3 were not established and instead decreeing the suit by the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified and atanyrate,the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have directed return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court instead of decreeing the suit, 4. The Defendant No. 1 had to incur lot of expenditure and suffered inconvenience by dragging him to Chirala Court instead of Ongole Court although Ex. A. 1 came into existence within thejurisdictionofOngoIeCourt and through Exs.A.2 and A.3, the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 manoeuvred to file the su it to make it as if Exs.A.2 and A.3 came into existence at Chirala only to fix the jurisdiction, thereby puttingDefendant No.1 to difficulties, 5. As a whole, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge deserves to be set aside as there was no reason for him to interfere with the decision of the learned District Munsif who, for adequate, proper and justifiable reasons, dismissed the suit. 6. At any rate, it was not a fit case to award costs of the plaintiff either in the suit or in the appeal and 7. In case this Court decides the above questions against the appellant, he may be totally relieved of the costs throughout as for no fault of his, he has been dragged to a Court of different jurisdiction and was made to go from Court to Court up to this Court to fight the 1 itigation for such a longtime.

(3.) Mr. G. PeddaBabu, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 has totally supported the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. According to him, that was the rightjudgmentwith proper findings on the issues by rectifying the serious error committed by the learned District Munsif in wrongly rejecting the proof of Exs. A.2 and A.3 and unnecessarily dismissing the suit without passing the proper order to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, if the finding that Chirala Court had no jurisdiction was right. He further contended that even accepting the contention of the appellant that Chirala Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the so called contention that Exs.A.2 and A.3 are not proved, in the absence of failure of justice, this Court will no interfere with the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in view of Section 21, sub-clause (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. He further submits that on no account, the appellant could be relieved of costs in any Court much less in this Court since it is because of him the plaintiff has been put to loss of his legitimate money due from the appellant and he has been made to fight the litigation in different Courts up to this Court and for a very longtime. According to him, actually, the plaintiff is deprived of almost 50 per cent of amount of interest to which he was legitimately entitled under the stipulation in Promissory Note, Ex.A. 1. He contends that there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed with costs throughout.