AZAM KHAO Vs. S SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the petitioner, He filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1000.00 on the foot of two promissory notes, Exs. A-2 and A-2. Ex. A-1 is dated 2-8-1974 and is in a sum of Rs. 400. Ex. A-2 is dated 3-2-1975 and is in a sum of Rs. 600. The defendant contended that he did not received the amounts mentioned in the promissory notes but that he received only an amount of Rs. 100.00 and Rs. 200.00, respectively under the said pronotes. He also stated that every month, the plaintiff, who is a pathan, has been collecting amount towards interest on full amount. He therefore denied his liability for an further payment.

(2.) The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, held (1) that the defendant has failed to establish that the did not receive the full amount mentioned in the promissory notes; and (2) that the suit is not liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is a money-lender but has not complied with the provisions of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act. But he dismissed the suit on the following ground, viz., .... .... the suit is not filed by the plaintiff himself but by one of his two power of attorney holders; under the Power of Atorney, two persons are empowered to act. If so, one of them cannot act unilaterally. Secondly, the General Power of Attorney must be deemed to have been impliedly revoked in this case because of the fact that it was executed only for the duration of the plaintiffs absence from India and also because in this matter the plaintiff has himself acted throughout. S. 207 of the Contract Act was said to have been attracted in this case effecting implied repeal of the General Power of Attorney. The said ground was not put forward in the written statement but appears to have been raised by the Court itself --- which, of course, it had the power to do.

(3.) The aforesaid ground of dismissal of the suit is challenged in this C. R. P.