DINABANDHU SAHU AND ORS. Vs. KARUNAKAR SATAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is for recovery of Rs. 1970/ - Plaintiff is a registered money -lender. His case is that on 8 -1 -1945 Defendant No. 1, father of Defendants 2 to 4 - borrowed from him Rs. 1500/ - as the Karta of the joint family of the Defendants for financing Gur (molasses) business of the family stipulating to pay interest at 12 percent per annum and, in evidence of the loan, executed the suit promissory note (ext. 1) which was scribed by Defendant no 2. In all, Rs. 1030/ - was paid towards interest in different instalments on 20 -9 -1917, 2 -8 -1950, 18 -6 -1953 and 15 -5 -1956. As the balance was not paid, the suit was filed on 21 -6 -1957.

(2.) THE Courts below concurrently rejected all the essential defence pleas. Plaintiff's suit was, however, dismissed by the trial Court for non -compliance with Rule 11(iii). The lower appellate Court decreed the suit taking the contrary view.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the plaint did not contain the particulars relating to Rule 11(iii). This is admitted in part 10 of the plaint itself thus -