GANDURU VENKAIAH Vs. ALURI NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition by the 1st defendant given rise to a short but interesting question of law relating to the scope and applicability of the provisions of Rules 1 and 5 of Order VIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The material facts that led to this revision petition are as follows:- The 1st respondent sued the petitioner herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 442.60 on the foot of a promissory note executed by him on December 27, 1965 for a sum of Rs. 400/- payable with interest at 12%. The petitioner, in his written statement, admitted the execution of the promissory note for consideration but claimed to have discharged the debt through one Reddi Appa Rao (DWI) who was subsequently added as the 2nd defendant pursuant to an order in I.A. 425/68 dated 10-5-1968. The 2nd defendant filed in a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. contending inter alia that he paid the amount due by the 1st defendant under the promissory note to the plaintiff through one Narsitty Peraiah and no further debt was due and payable by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. The trial court on a consideration of the material on record, held that the plea of discharge has not been established and in any event the amount due and payable under the suit promissory note has not reached the hands of the plaintiff and decreed the suit on August 28, 1968. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Sri Rajeswara Rao the counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner contends that the lower court having added the third party on whom notice under order VIII-A, Rule 1 C.P.C. was served as a party defendant, failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 5 of Order VIII-A and grant a decree for contribution in favour of his client.