REDDI VARAMAIAH Vs. PEREDDI NAGI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent though served not engaged any Counsel. His name was called out and none appeared for him. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner before this Courtis the defendant. The respondent-plaintifffiled the suit for recovery of Rs.1,783-60 ps. due on a pronote and other legal charges and costs. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the defendant took loan of Rs.1,400/- at Nandikotkur on 28-5-1992 and executed suit pronote dated 28-5-1992 under Ex.A-1, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand. The plaintiff stated that in spite of several demands made by him, the defendant did not pay the amount. However, on 25-5-1995 the defendant sent an amount of Rs.400/- through his wife Neelamma. She made an endorsement on the said pronote having paid Rs.400 /-. Thereafter the balance amount was not paid. The plaintiff, under those circumstances, got issued lawyer's notice vide Ex.A-2 dated 5-6-1997 and in spite of service of lawyer's notice the defendant did not pay the amount and hence he filed the suit. The defendant by filing a written statement denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. It is contended by the defendant that the pronote was a fabricated document with the help of plaintiff's henchmen to get unlawful benefit from the defendant. It is further stated that the payment of endorsement on the suit pronote is not that of his wife. Even otherwise it is an unenforceable document. He has never authorised his wife to pay the amount on his behalf and as such the suit is barred by limitation. The said endorsement of payment of Rs.400/- stated to have been made by the wife of the defendant was marked as Ex.A-4, dated 25-4-1995.

(3.) The plaintiff examined P.Ws.l and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4.Defendant examined himself as D.W.I and no documents were marked on his behalf.