MUSUNURI ANJANEYULU Vs. KOONA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge in S.C.No.4 of 1996 dated 21-2-1997 are challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) The pelilioners are the defendants in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed on the basis of a pronote for recovery of Rs.5,000.00 with interest and costs. The defendants pleaded to have discharged the pronote on payment of Rs.7,293.00 on 18-4-1994 but in spite of the payment, the pronote was not returned by the plaintiff. They also contended that the purported signatures to the endorsement dated 5-11-1994 upon which the suit was based for the purpose of limitation had been forged. Afler trial, the learned sub-Judge rejected the defence as above and decreed the suit.

(3.) In addition to the grounds raised in the petition, Mr. Vallum, the learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the finding of the learned Sub-Judge is opposed to the evidence on record and patently an error. In regard to the discharge of the pronote, he has pointed out that the learned Sub-Judge except referring that DW2 stated in his presence that he paid Rs.7,923.00, no reasons are given to state whether it is accepted or rejected and therefore, there is a legal error amounting to legal lacuna which cannot be supported. This Court is unable lo agree with the contention, the reason being that the evidence of the discharge of pronote based merely on the sworn testimony of DWs. 1 and 2 is not supported by any documentary evidence and does not find any supporting material or probability. They even took a sland that in spite of the demand made to the plaintiff to return the pronote after discharge of the amount, it was not returned. The only supporting material is the reply notice Ex. A4 to the notice Ex.A3. When such a stand is taken, such a conduct should also enforce itself to the probability. The amount discharged was quite a heavy one. For a lesser amount borrowed under the pronote, a document has come into existence but for a larger amount discharged, no document has come into existence. Possibly, the intrinsic reasoning of the learned Judge on such material merely based upon the testimony did not judicially convince itself that the plea of discharge was established. At any rate, this Court has supplemented that reasoning with the material.