KARUMANCHI JANAKAMMA Vs. BODAPATI PUNNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed O. S. No. 317 of 2002 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, macherla, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,600/-on the strength of a promissory note against the respondent. The suit was decreed on 21-09-2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A. S. No. 27 of 2005 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal on 19-08-2009 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) SRI M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court was left with no alternative except to dismiss (sic. decree) the suit on account of the fact that it is reported on behalf of the respondent that he has no evidence to adduce. He contends that the trial Court did examine the various facets of Order XVII C. P. C. and it decided the matter on merits. The learned counsel submits that the lower appellate court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court when everything was done in accordance with law.

(3.) SRI P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the suit was liable to be rejected on several grounds such as one relating to limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. He contends that even assuming that no evidence was reported on behalf of the respondent and that the respondent was not present, the only alternative for the trial Court was to decree the suit ex parte. The learned counsel submits that the lower appellate Court has examined the various aspects and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal.