SUDERSHAN TRADING CO Vs. M GUJARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiff under section 25 of the Small Causes Act is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in S.C.S. No. 897 off 1974 dated August, 12, 1975.

(2.) The suit was iustituted by the petitioner M/s. Sudershan Trading Comopany against the respondents-defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.105-07 with costs and future interest. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent was a subscriber of the plaintiff-firm in a chit for Rs. 5,000/ . On 6th of September, 19681 the 1st respondent bid the chit for Rs. 3,750/-and be received the said amount on 26th of February, 1969 under a receipt of the same date. Respondents 2 and 3 stood as sureties and all of them executed a pronote, Ex. A2 dt. 26-2-1969 for a sum of Rs. 4.250/-. The 1st defendant made some remittances, but be committed default thereafter. The respondents, under these circumstances, according to the petitioner, are due in a sum of Rs. 1,095-05. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are set ex-parte in the suit.

(3.) The 1st defendant alone contested the suit. In the written statement filed by him it is stated that he was the subscriber in the plaintiff- company and was paying monthly subscription of Rs. 125/- On the date of the bid, he stated that he paid a total amount of Rs. 750/- and therefore a pronote was taken for Rs. 4,250/-on 26-2-69. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as gaurantors for the suit pro-note. The plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs. 3,750/-against the pro-note for Rs. 4,250/-. The plaintiff did not give the entire amount of Rs. 5,000/ but he paid only a sum of Rs. 3,750/- According to him. he paid the entire amount and nothing was due from him to the plaintiff. After he paid the entire amount, the pass book was also taken from him on the pretext that the entries made therein should be checked up with the plaintiffs ledger entries. It was further contended by the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation and is beyond three years. The respondent did not pay or remit a sum of Rs. 450/-on 18th June, 1974. Therefore net amount is due from him and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this revision by the plaintiff.