Smt. B.radha Rani

1

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVUR

Present: Smt B.RADHARANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur.

Friday, this the Twentieth (20th) day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.175 of 2017

R.V.Srinivasa Kumar. . .Plaintiff.

Vs.

T.Balaji. . .Defendant.

This suit is having come before me on 19-4-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.S.Ranga Rajan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Sundaraiah Yadav, Sri K.Dayakar, Advocates for the defendant, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,62,521/- being

principal and interest basing on two suit pronotes, dated 24.7.2014 and 1.8.2014 for

a sum of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.86,768/- respectively from the defendant and for suit costs.

2. The averments of neat copy of plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.66,000/- on 24.7.2014 and another sum of Rs.86,768/-on 1.8.2014 from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed two separate pronotes, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

(ii) In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the due amount under two suit pronotes and postponed the same on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff got issued two legal notices for two pronotes debt calling upon the defendant to repay the debt under suit pronotes. But the defendant received the same, nether he replied nor complied demand of plaintiff.

(iii) Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount under two pronotes by claiming contract rate of interest at the rate of 24% per annum as the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled for benefits of Act 4 of 1938. Hence, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

2

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

3. The averments of written statement, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The defendant filed his written statement denying the material allegations of plaint. Further averred that he borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 15.3.2010 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed pronote in favour of the plaintiff.

(ii) It is further submitted that the plaintiff calculated the interest upto one year, i.e., from 15.3.2010 to 15.3.2011 and added the interest amount of

Rs.16,800/- with principal amount and endorsed on white paper for a sum of

Rs.70,000/- + Rs.16,800/-, total Rs.86,800/-. Thereafter the plaintiff again calculated 12 months interest on Rs.86,800/- at the rate of 24% per annum upto 15.3.2012 and the interest amount comes to Rs.20,832/-, total amount of Rs.1,07,632/-.

Thereafter the plaintiff calculated interest on Rs.1,07,632/- at the rate of 24% per annum for 7 months and the interest amount comes to Rs.15,068/- and added with

principal amount and it is comes to Rs.1,07,632/- and both amounts arrived at

Rs.1,22,700/- and deducted a sum of Rs.2,7000/- towards part payment paid by the defendant and the same is endorsed by the plaintiff on a white paper with his own handwriting.

(iii) It is further submitted that the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute a separate pronote for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. Then, the defendant executed another pronote for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 15.7.2012 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

(iv) It is further submitted that the plaintiff calculated interest on

Rs.1,20,000/- for 16 months upto 15.7.2013 and it comes to Rs.38,400/-, total amount arrived at Rs.1,58,400/- and on the same day the defendant paid a sum of

Rs.50,000/- towards part payment. Thereafter, the plaintiff deducted a sum of

Rs.3,000/- towards part payment paid by the defendant and thereby the amount arrived at Rs.1,05,400/-. Thereafter the plaintiff calculated interest for four months from July, 2013 to October, 2013 and sum of Rs.8,000/- arrived towards interest amount and added the same into the main amount of Rs.1,05,400/- and it comes to

Rs.1,13,400/-. At the time the defendant paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards part payment and the same is deducted by the plaintiff and total amount arrived at

Rs.1,03,400/-.

3

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

(v) It is further submitted that the plaintiff again calculated interest from

November, 2013 to February, 2014 it comes to Rs.8,000/- and added the same with

Rs.1,03,400/- and the total amount comes to Rs.1,11,400/-. In the meantime the defendant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards part payment and the same is deducted from Rs.1,11,400/-. Thereafter the total amount arrived at Rs.86,400/- and thereafter the plaintiff again calculated 7 months interest from 27.1.2014 to 27.7.2014 and it comes to Rs.10,368/- towards interest amount and added the same with Rs.86,400/- and it comes to Rs.96,768/-.

(vi) It is further submitted that in the meantime in the month of July, 2014, the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- and the same is deducted by the plaintiff and after deducting the same the amount comes to Rs.86,768/-. The entire transaction written by the plaintiff on white paper.

(vii) It is further submitted that the plaintiff threatened the defendant to execute the suit pronotes dated 1.8.2014 for a sum of Rs.86,768/- for which the defendant executed one of the suit pronote on 1.8.2014 in favour of the plaintiff on connection with old pronote due. Prior to that, the plaintiff threatened the defendant to execute another pronote, due to fear the defendant executed pronote on 24.7.2014 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.66,000/-. Both pronotes amounts are clearly mentioned on a white paper by the plaintiff with his own handwriting. So, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. No consideration was received by the defendant from the plaintiff under the above said two pronotes.

There is no cause of action in this suit. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above rivarly pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial on 6.3.2018:

1. Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount form the defendant? and

3. To what relief?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1. The 2nd attestor of suit pronotes is examined as P.W.2 and exhibited Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-6. On the other hand, no evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

4

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

7.Issue No.1:

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-6, the plaintiff clinchingly established his case. The same is unchallenged and rebutted as the defendant failed to adduce rebutable evidence against the case of plaintiff in spite of providing time and imposing costs. Hence, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

8.Per contra the learned counsel for defendant would submit that the plaintiff himself admitted that Exs.A-1 and A-2 are outcome of un-discharged amount of earlier transaction, which is not supported by consideration. Moreover, P.W.2 first attestor deposed that he only affixed his signature on the pronotes and he do not know the purpose of transaction. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, he himself is examined as P.W.1. He filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination by reiterating the averments of plaint. He also relied upon Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-6.

10.During course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that under Ex.B-1 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 15.3.2010 and discharged the same and Ex.B-1 pronote dated 15.3.2010 was cancelled. Likewise he admitted that on 15.3.2012 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff under

Ex.B-2 another torned pronote and discharged the said amount. He also issued receipt towards proof of discharge of debt under receipt.B-2. The said receipt is also marked as Ex.B-3, it contains the details about discharge of debt under Exs.B-1 and

Ex.B-2 by the defendant to the plaintiff. Those documents reveals that there are prior money transaction in between the plaintiff and the defendant and plaintiff used to lend money to the defendant whenever he needed money.

11.Mere having prior money transaction in between the parties is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of his claim towards this suit pronotes.

In respect of present suit pronotes, he categorically stated that the defendant executed Ex.A-1 first suit pronote on 24.7.2014 for sum of Rs.66,000/-. Similarly he also executed Ex.A-2 another pronote on 1.8.2014 for a sum of Rs.86,768/- in favour 5

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

of plaintiff. So, Exs.A-1 and Ex.A-2 appears to be executed subsequent to the transactions earlier under Exs.B-1 and Ex.B-2. When there are money transactions, borrowing loan again by the defendant from the plaintiff cannot be suspected.

Unless until the defendant borrowed loan under two pronotes, there is no need to the plaintiff to approach this Court for recovery of amount under it.

12.In respect of earlier transactions as the defendant discharged the debt, he cancelled and torn the previous pronotes i.e., Exs.B-1 and Ex.B-2 by noting the payments details by way of receipt under Ex.B-3. So, if really the defendant is discharged the debt without default, there is no need to the plaintiff to approach this Court for recovery of pronotes amount under Exs.A-1 and Ex.A-2.

13.Here, the learned counsel for the defendant would argue that no consideration is passed under suit pronotes. But the evidence of P.W.1 reveals that he passed consideration under Exs.A-1 and Ex.A-2 to the defendant. For the said evidence, no cogent evidence placed by way of rebutable evidence. Hence, the contention of the defendant cannot be accepted. Mere putting suggestions that consideration is not passed under suit pronotes is insufficient to conclude in favour of the defendant without satisfactory evidence on his behalf.

14.P.W.2 being 1st attestor filed his chief-affidavit in support of case of plaintiff in lieu of his chief-examination. He clearly stated that he attested the suit pronotes, which were executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Of course, he failed to give the date, month and year of pronotes and went to extent that he only affixed his signatures in the suit pronotes and he do not the purpose of its transactions. For which purpose the defendant borrowed loan may not known to P.W.2 on that ground his evidence cannot be dis-believable as he categorically stated that he affixed one signature in each pronote is elicited from P.W.2. Therefore, his evidence cannot be suspected.

15.The ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 clearly supported the case of plaintiff. Now there is need to have glance at Exs.A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-1 is suit pronote

dated 24.7.2014 evidencing that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.66,000/- and

executed Ex.A-1, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A-2 is suit pronote dated 1.8.2014 evidencing that the 6

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.86,768/- and executed Ex.A-2, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum in favour of plaintiff. Exs.A-3 and Ex.A-5 are office copies of legal notices, dated 17.4.2017 evidencing that prior to filing suit, the plaintiff issued legal notices, calling upon the defendant to discharge the debt amount under two pronotes by issuing legal notice for each pronote. Exs.A-4 and

Ex.A-6 are postal receipts and acknowledgments, evidencing that two legal notices served to the defendant.

16.The ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-6, the plaintiff clinchingly established his case. In spite of their cross-examination by the learned counsel for defendant, no substance is elicited in favour of the defendant and against the case of plaintiff. In fact they stood for cross-examination and their evidence is no shaken, then the presumption under Sec.118 of N.I. Act would comes to rescue of plaintiff to hold that on the date of suit pronotes, the transaction took place in between P.W.1 and defendant and consideration was passed to the defendant from the plaintiff under two suit pronotes. Then, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the evidence of plaintiff.

17.In this case though the defendant taken a discharge plea under Exs.B-1 to

Ex.B-3, he failed to adduce evidence on his behalf.

18. At this juncture it is appropriate to note the judgment of Indian Bank,

Chittoor vs. R.Venkata Ramana reported in 2004(3) ALT 665 D.B., wherein his Lordship held that “When the defendant failed to get into witness box to let in evidence and not faced cross-examination, the averments of his defence itself is insufficient and an adverse inference can be drawn against his case”.

A perusal of record, in this case also the defendant failed to get into witness box and not faced cross-examination, then this Court holds that only to evade to pay the due amount, he taken bare pleading in his written statement stating that he discharged amounts with interest earlier as averred in his written statement.

19.In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

20.Issue No.2:

In view of answer given in issue No.1, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff, holding that he is entitled for recovery of suit amount basing on two suit pronotes from the defendant.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and

against the defendant.

21.Issue No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs.

The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,62,521/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal amount of Rs. 1,52,768/- to the plaintiff.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 20 th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT: NONE

PW.1: R.V. Srinivasa Kumar. PW.2: I.Bala.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINATIFF:--

Ex.A1: Original suit pronote, dt.24.7.2014. Ex.A2: Another original suit pronote, dt.1.8.2014. Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice, dt.17.4.2017. Ex.A4: Postal receipt and acknowledgment. Ex.A5: Office copy of legal notice, dt.17.4.2017. Ex.A6: Postal receipt and acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT : Ex.B-1: Cancelled pronote. Ex.B-2: Torned pronote. Ex.B-3: Receipt.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur.

8

O.S.No.175 of 2017 Dt. 20-4-2018

1

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVUR

Present: Smt B.RADHARANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur.

Wednesday, this the Eighteenth (18th) day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.194 of 2017

Pamidimarry Lakshmi Kumari. . .Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Nellore Ramachandraiah

2. Nellore Lakshmidevi. . .Defendants.

This suit is having come before me on 18-4-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.Chennaiah, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,40,800/- being principal and interest basing on the suit pronote, dated 4.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendants and for suit costs.

2. The averments of neat copy of plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff contended that on 4.2.2016 both the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed suit pronote in favour of plaintiff.

(ii) In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not choose to repay the suit pronote debt and postponing the same for some pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 7.10.2017 demanding the defendants to repay the suit pronote debt.

(iii) Having received a legal notice by the defendants, they issued reply notice with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit pronote debt by claiming contract rate of interest as they are not agriculturist and not entitled for benefits of Act 4 of 1938.

Hence, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

2

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

3. The 1st defendant filed his written statement, same is adopted by the 2nd defendant vide separate adoption memo, dated 20.2.2018.

The averments of written statement of 1 st defendant, in brief,

are as follows:

(i) The 1st defendant filed written statement by denying the material allegations of plaint. Further averred that the suit pronote is forged document, it is not supported by consideration. The suit pronote is created to get wrongful gain and to harass the defendants. The defendants reserved their right to file separate petition for amendment if any.

(ii) Further averred that there is no cause of action for the suit. The defendants are agricultural coolies. Hence, they are entitled for benefits of

Act 4 of 1938, therefore, the interest has to be scaled down. The Court may decide the issue without causing prejudice to the contents of the defendants.

At last prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above rivarly pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial on 5.3.2018:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount form the Defendants as prayed for? and

3. To what relief?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1. The 2nd attestor and scribe of suit pronote are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and exhibited Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-5 on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, no evidence adduced by the defendants.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

7.Issue No.1:

3

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-5, the plaintiff clinchingly established the case. Hence, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the burden always lies on the plaintiff to establish that the suit pronote is not a forged document and it is supported by consideration. Though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 relied by the plaintiff, their evidence cannot be considered. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.In the nature of this suit, the plaintiff should establish the due execution of suit pronote and passing of consideration. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1. She filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination by reiterating the averments of plaint. She relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-5

10.The learned counsel for defendants cross-examined P.W.1. Wherein she clearly stated that she got acquaintance with the defendants when they approached her husband for purchasing of house-hold articles on installment basis. Failure to note the present address of defendants by P.W.1 is not a ground to disbelieve her evidence. Of course, she failed to give address noted in suit pronote, saying that she does not remember the date, months and year of the suit pronote. But she categorically stated that P.W.3 is scribe of suit pronote, P.W.2 and one Sarabu Venkata Subbarao are the attestors to the suit pronote.

11.Further she deposed that herself, defendants, P.W.2, P.W.3 and Sarabu

Venkata Subbarao were present at the time of transaction. She further stated that each defendant affixed signature twice in Ex.A-1. She went to extent that the defendants signed their signatures with blue ink pen like that of attestors. In fact the defendants signed with black ink pen. But the said discrepancy alone would not take away the case of plaintiff, because she 4

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

clearly stated that the scribe, scribed the pronote with black ink pen and attestors attested the same with blue ink pen.

12.Further, she clearly deposed that on 4.2.2016 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed suit pronote in her favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. She failed to give particulars and boundaries of property shown in I.A.No.643/2017 which are belongs to the defendants. Such failure is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff as this suit is filed for recovery of suit amount basing on the suit pronote.

13.Now there is need to have glance at Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-5. Ex.A-1 is original suit pronote, dated 4.2.2016 discloses that both the defendants signed twice each and two attestors signed in it, there is no correction and consideration amount is also clearly noted as Rs.1,00,000/- is words as well as in figures, the interest amount is also noted as Rs.2/-. Ex.A-2 is office copy of legal notice, dated 7.10.2017 evidencing that prior to filing suit the plaintiff issued legal notice to both the defendants calling upon them to repay the due amount under suit pronote. Exs.A-3 and Ex.A-4 are postal receipts and postal acknowledgment evidencing about causing of legal notice to the defendants. Ex.A-5 is reply notice discloses that 2nd defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from the husband of plaintiff on 7.10.2013 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 48% per annum. When the defendants requested to reduce interest rate from 48% per annum to 24% per annum, the husband of plaintiff not heard and put deaf ear. Hence, the husband of plaintiff insisted for execution of simple mortgage deed in respect of 2 ½

Ankanams of Thatched house and 15 ½ Ankanams of site in survey No.1/3, 6th Ward, 12 Block, Opposite D.No.B-12-23/1 and made further allegation against the husband of plaintiff, saying that he is back behind in filing this suit. Further made allegation that the husband of plaintiff obtained blank pronote, which contains the signatures of defendants and got it filed through plaintiff. But reply notice averments which filed by the plaintiff were not 5

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

pleaded in the written statement. The pleadings of written statement differs with the contents of reply notice. So, such allegations cannot be accepted without pleadings or without evidence. Be that it may be, reply notice averments discloses about execution of blank pronote by defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

14.Apart from the above evidence, the plaintiff relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and P.W.3.

Evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3: P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 being 2nd attestor and scribe of the suit pronote filed their chief-affidavits in support of case of plaintiff, stating that in their presence the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- for their necessities from the plaintiff under the suit pronote, which was scribed by P.W.3 and attested by P.W.2 and another person, by name Sarabu

Venkata Subbarao. They both cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendants. In spite of it, their evidence is not shaken and no substance is elicited to disbelieve their evidence in favour of the case of defendants.

15.Be that it may be, they both clearly testified that on 4.2.2016 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff in their presence and executed Ex.A-1 suit pronote in her favour and consideration passed under it. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 coupled with the Exs.A- 1 to A-5 clinchingly established that the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 4.2.2016 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. If really a simple mortgage deed executed in favour of the husband of the plaintiff by the defendants, there is ample opportunity to the defendants to file such document copy. However, the averments of reply notice reveals that there are money transaction in between the family of plaintiff and defendants. Then a presumption under

Sec.118 of N.I. Act can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff to hold that the money transaction under suit pronote happened in between the plaintiff and defendants on the date, month and year noted in it and consideration passed there under. Then, the burden shifts to the defendants to rebut the evidence 6

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

of plaintiff. In this suit the defendants failed to get into witness box and failed to adduce evidence. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn to hold that to evade to pay pronote amount false versions pleaded in written statement which is contrary to the contents of their reply notices.

16. At this juncture it is appropriate to note the judgment of Indian Bank,

Chittoor vs. R.Venkata Ramana reported in 2004(3) ALT 665 D.B., wherein his Lordship held that:

“When the defendant failed to get into witness box to let in evidence and not faced cross-examination, the averments of his defence itself is insufficient and an adverse inference can be drawn against his case”.

On the other hand, the plaintiff clinchingly established her case, in such case this

Court holds that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants.

Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendants.

17.Issue No.2:

In view of answer given under issue No.1, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants and the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendants.

18.Issue No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs.

The defendants are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,40,800/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

7

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

Kovur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: P.Lakshmi Kumari. NONE PW.2: D.Srinivasulu. PW.3: P.Mallikarjuna Babu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINATIFF:--

Ex.A1: Original suit pronote, dt.4.2.2016. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.7.10.2017. Ex.A3: Registered postal receipts (2 in number), dt.7.10.2017. Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgments of the defendants. Ex.A5: Reply notice, dt.12.10.2017.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur.

8

O.S.No.194 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

1

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVUR

Present: Smt B.RADHARANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur.

Tuesday, this the Seventeenth (17th) day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.132 of 2017

Battala Eeswaramma. . .Plaintiff.

Vs.

Althur Parameswar Reddy. . .Defendant.

This suit is having come before me on 11-4-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri E.Bhaskaraiah, Counsel for the defendant, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.61,253/- being principal and interest basing on the suit pronote, dated 9.6.2014 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and for suit costs.

2. The averments of neat copy of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.06.2014 for his family necessities and executed suit pronote on the same day in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to her on her order on demand.

(ii) One Gowravaram Lakshminarayana is the scribe of suit pronote. On receipt of consideration amount, the defendant signed twice in the suit pronote, one is on the revenue stamp and another is underneath of revenue stamp. Then, V.Ramachandraiah and B.Nagaiah attested the suit pronote.

(iii) In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice,

dated 16.7.2016 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the due amount

2

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

under suit pronote. But the legal notice returned with an endorsement that the defendant refused to receive the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount by claiming contract rate of interest. Since the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled for benefit of Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987. Therefore, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

3. The averments of written statement, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The defendant filed his written statement by denying the material allegations of the plaint. Further averred that to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and to get wrongful gain to the plaintiff, this suit filed by creating a story.

(ii) Further contended that the suit pronote is forged document and the defendant never borrowed any loan from the plaintiff. The suit pronote created for the purpose of suit. The defendant reserved his right to file

additional written statement. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit

with costs.

4.Basing on the above rivarly pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial on 6-9-2017:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount form the defendant? And

3. To what relief?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1. She also examined scribe as P.W.2 and exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf of plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant failed to get into witness box and no evidence adduced on his behalf.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The Arguments on behalf of the defendant take it as heard as the defendant and his Counsel did not turn up. Perused the record.

3

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff clinchingly established the case about lending money to the defendant by the plaintiff under suit pronote. The scribe of suit pronote also clearly supported the case of plaintiff. The ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-3 proved the case of plaintiff. Hence, prayed the

Court to decree the suit.

8.Per contra, defendant pleaded that the suit pronote is forged, fabricated and created for suit purpose though no loan availed under it to get wrongful gain by the plaintiff and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant.

Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

9.Issue No.1:

In the nature of this suit, the initial burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove the due execution of pronote and passing of consideration. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, she herself is examined as P.W.1. She filed her chief-affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination by reiterating the averments of plaint.

10.During course of cross-examination, she testified that she is having sheeps and doing cultivation. On 9.6.2014 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.40,000/- from her and executed Ex.A-1 suit pronote in her favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. She used to visit Jonnawada and got acquaintance with the defendant as her Uncle’s house is situated adjacent to the house of defendant. Except Ex.A-1 suit pronote loan, she did not provide loan to the defendant. In between 7-00 to 7-30 A.M., she passed consideration to the defendant in the presence of

P.W.2 and attestors, by names, Ramachandran and B.Nagaiah.

11.Further she stated that the defendant himself secured the attestors and he brought empty pronote and stamp paper and filed the same. The 4

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

defendant signed twice in the suit pronote. 500 denomination currency notes passed by the plaintiff to the defendant.

12.In support P.W.1, she also produced the evidence of scribe of suit pronote as P.W.2 who filed his chief-affidavit and stated about scribing of suit pronote by him and money transaction held between the plaintiff and the defendant.

13.During course of cross-examination, the learned counsel for the defendant would elicit that P.W.2 is working as Health Education Extension

Officer at D.M. and H.O. Office, Nellore. His duty timings are 10-00 A.M., to 5- 00 P.M. He is residing of Dargamitta, Nellore. The suit pronote scribed at his house when the defendant, attestors and plaintiff came there. In his presence, the plaintiff passed consideration to the defendant and defendant affixed his signature in Ex.A-1. He scribed six pronotes including Ex.A-1 pertaining to the plaintiff.

14.He further testified that he know the defendant and attestors prior to transaction. He used to purchase paddy from the defendant. The 2nd attestor, by name Nagaiah is resident of Jonnawada and Varigonda. In between 7-00

A.M., to 7-30 A.M., he scribed the Ex.A-1 suit pronote.

15.A perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, their evidence is clearly establishes that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 suit pronote. Ex.A-1 is evidencing that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff and money transaction took place. Ex.A-2 is legal notice, dated 16.7.2016 evidencing that prior to filing suit, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt, but the said legal notice returned as un-served as the defendant refused, the said acknowledgement is noted with Red Ink on Ex.A-3.

16.A perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2, their evidence is clearly supported the case of plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence. In fact, 5

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

they stood for cross-examination and their evidence is not shaken. No substance is elicited in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff to suspect their evidence. Hence, the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 is establishes the case of plaintiff. Such is the case, a presumption under Sec.118 of N.I. Act would come to rescue of plaintiff to hold that the money transaction took place in between the plaintiff and defendant on the date, month, year noted therein besides passing of consideration.

17.Then, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the evidence of plaintiff. But in this case, the defendant failed to get into witness box and failed to face cross-examination without assigning any reason though this

Court imposed costs and conditions for adducing his evidence. Then, an adverse inference is drawn against his case as mere taking of allegations in the written statement is insufficient without evidence to conclude in favour of the defendant.

18. At this juncture it is appropriate to note the judgment of Indian Bank,

Chittoor vs. R.Venkata Ramana reported in 2004(3) ALT 665 D.B., wherein his Lordship held that:

“When the defendant failed to get into witness box to let in evidence and not faced cross-examination, the averments of his defence itself is insufficient and an adverse inference can be drawn against his case”.

In the light of aforesaid discussion and settled legal position failure to adduce evidence by defendant is against his case. An adverse inference can be drawn to hold that to evade to pay suit amount false pleadings taken by defendant. Hence, he is liable to pay suit amount. As already stated that the plaintiff established her case, in such case this Court holds that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

19.Issue No.2:

6

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

In view of answer given under issue No.1, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

20.Issue No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs.

The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.61,253/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of suit to date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal amount of Rs.40,000/- to the plaintiff.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: B.Eswaramma. NONE PW.2: G.Lakshmi Narayana.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINATIFF:--

Ex.A1: Original suit pronote, dt. 9.6.2014. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.16-7-2016. Ex.A3: Un-served postal cover.

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur.

7

O.S.No.132 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

1

O.S.No.200 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVUR

Present: Smt B.RADHARANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur.

Tuesday, this the Seventeenth (17th) day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.200 of 2017

Dasari Radhakrishnaiah. . .Plaintiff.

Vs.

Dasari Raveendrababu. . .Defendant.

This suit is having come before me on 11-4-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Chennaiah, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Mallikarjuna Babu, Counsel for the defendant, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.95,946/- being principal and interest basing on the suit pronote, dated 17.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.56,000/- and for suit costs.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.56,000/- on 17.10.2014 from the plaintiff for his necessities and executed suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

(ii) In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the debt amount. Hence, he got issued legal notice, dated 5.9.2017 calling upon the defendant to repay the debt amount. But no use. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount basing on the suit pronote by claiming contract rate of interest as the defendant is not an agriculturist and not entitled for benefit of Act 4 of 1938. Therefore, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

2

O.S.No.200 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

3. The averments of written statement, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The defendant filed his written statement admitting the execution of suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Further averred that he agreed to repay the due amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but not 24% per annum. At the time of availing loan from the plaintiff no attestor and scribe were present.

(ii) Then the defendant attacked with chest Cancer and took treatment at SVIMS hospital, Tirupathi. During treatment the defendant intimated to his

Villager, by name, Gunduboina Ravindra Babu to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of suit pronote due to the plaintiff. The said

Gunduboina Ravindra sent his Villager, by name, Puvvadi Subbamma to the house of plaintiff and the said Puvvadi Subbamma paid Rs.50,000/- on 12.6.2017 to the wife of plaintiff, by name Dasari Anitha towards part payment of debt and the wife of plaintiff gave written endorsement for receipt of said part payment.

(iii) Further submitted that after discharging from the hospital, the defendant agreed to pay remaining balance amount. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining principal balance amount of Rs.6,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but not total amount as claimed by the plaintiff.

(iv) The defendant has no knowledge about the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above rivarly pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial on 2-3-2018:

1. Whether the defendant is liable to pay only Rs.6,000/- and discharged the remaining Rs.50,000/- on 12.6.2017 towards suit pronote amount?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for? And

3. To what relief?

3

O.S.No.200 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-3 on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1. No document is marked on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the defendant admitted during his cross-examination about his ready and willingness in payment of suit pronote. Hence, prayed the Court to decree the suit.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the defendant agreed to pay the remaining principal balance amount of

Rs.6,000/- with interest, but not total suit pronote amount as he paid

Rs.50,000/- part payment to the wife of plaintiff. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

9.Issue No.1:

In the nature of this suit, though the initial burden lies with the plaintiff in proving due execution of pronote and passing of consideration.

10.As seen from the pleadings of the defendant, he admitted about execution of suit pronote. Once he admitted the same a presumption under

Sec.118 of N.I. Act has to draw to the effect that it is supported by consideration. Then, the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption and to prove that he paid Rs.50,000/- towards part payment and the remaining principal amount of Rs.6,000/- with interest is only required to be paid to the plaintiff under suit pronote.

10.To substantiate the case of defendant, he himself is examined as

D.W.1. He filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination by reiterating the averments of written statement. During course of cross- examination he admitted that the receipt which was enclosed to the written statement did not contain the signature of plaintiff and his name. Further 4

O.S.No.200 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

deposed that he is ready to pay the suit amount. Such admission of D.W.1 goes to show that a written endorsement/receipt which was relied by the defendant for proof of part payment of Rs.50,000/- did not contain either the signature of plaintiff or his name. Without signature of plaintiff or at least his name and address or at least reference about suit pronote debt, it cannot be looked into. Be that it may be, the said receipt not marked on behalf of the defendant.

11.If really the defendant paid said part payment of Rs.50,000/- through his Villagers Gunduboina Ravindra Babu and Puvvadi Subbamma and really it was paid to the wife of plaintiff, he got ample opportunity to examine any one of them in support of his contention. But no such efforts made by the defendant.

12.Be that it may be, the defendant himself admitted that he is ready to pay suit pronote amount. Such is the case, it cannot be said that he paid part payment of Rs.50,000/- on 12.6.2017 to the wife of plaintiff, by name, Dasari

Anitha through Gunduboina Ravindra babu and Puvvadi Subbamma. Once he failed to establish the fact of part payment and in view of his admissions about his willingness and readiness, it can be concluded against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. So, it can holds that the defendant is liable to pay entire suit amount with interest, but not Rs.6,000/- alone as contended by the defendant and further holds that the defendant failed to establish the fact about part payment of Rs.50,000/- to the wife of plaintiff on 12.6.2017.

Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

13.Issue No.2:

Once the defendant admitted about execution of suit pronote and failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.118 of N.I. Act, the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-3 is in favour of the plaintiff to hold that 5

O.S.No.200 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

the defendant borrowed Rs.56,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-1 suit pronote, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In spite of receipt of legal notice, dated 5.9.2017, i.e., Ex.A-2 the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Ex.A-3 is evidencing about postal receipt. The plaintiff who filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief- examination by reiterating the averments of his plaint is clinchingly established his case besides the admissions of defendant to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit pronote amount as prayed for.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.Issue No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs.

The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.95,946/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of suit to date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal amount of Rs.56,000/- to the plaintiff.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: D.Radhakrishnaiah. D.W.1: D.Ravindra Babu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINATIFF:--

Ex.A1: Original suit pronote, dt. 17.10.2014. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.5.9.2017. Ex.A3: Postal receipt.

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur.

6

O.S.No.200 of 2017 Dt. 17-4-2018

1

O.S.No.221 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVUR

Present: Smt B.RADHARANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur.

Wednesday, this the Eighteenth (18th) day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.221 of 2017

Kavali Penchalaiah. . .Plaintiff.

Vs.

Jangiti Sudhakar. . .Defendant.

This suit is having come before me on 17-4-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Upendra, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Venku Reddy, Counsel for the defendant, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,73,000/- being

principal and interest basing on the suit pronote, dated 01.11.2014 for a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/- and for suit costs.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff contended that on 1.11.2014 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and business purpose and executed the suit pronote in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or on his order on demand.

(ii) In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the due amount under suit pronote. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 18.2.2017 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the due amount under suit pronote with interest. The same was served to the defendant on 20.2.20 17, but he neither replied nor discharged the said debt. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount by claiming contract rate of interest. As the 2

O.S.No.221 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled for benefit of Act 4 of 1938. Therefore, prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

3. The averments of written statement, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The defendant filed his written statement by denying the material allegations of the plaint. Further averred that he do not know the plaintiff personally, he had no acquaintance with him. He never borrowed any loan from the plaintiff. There is no cause of action. The plaintiff managed the postal authorities in respect of legal notice. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above rivarly pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial on 09.03.2018:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount form the Defendant as prayed for? And

3. To what relief?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1. He also examined scribe and second attestor as P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 and exhibited

Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-3 on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant failed to adduce evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-3, the plaintiff clinchingly established the due execution of suit pronote and passing of consideration. In spite of cross-examination, no substance is elicited in favour of the defendant. Hence, prayed the Court to decree the suit.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the suit pronote is not legally enforceable document. Actually the plaintiff 3

O.S.No.221 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

unknown to the defendant. Without having acquaintance borrowing of loan from the plaintiff does not arise. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

9.Issue No.1:

In the nature of this suit, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to establish the due execution of pronote and passing of consideration. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, he himself is examined as P.W.1. He filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination by reiterating the averments of plaint. He also relied upon Exs.A-1 Ex.A-3.

10.A perusal of Ex.A-1 original suit pronote, dated 1.11.2014 evidencing that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Ex.A-2 is legal notice, dated 18.2.2017 evidencing that prior to filing suit, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the due under suit pronote. Ex.A-3 is postal acknowledgment discloses that the legal notice issued by the plaintiff through his counsel was served to the defendant.

11.Evidence of P.Ws.2 and P.W.3:

P.W.2 being 2nd attestor and P.W.3 being scribe of suit pronote clearly supported the case of plaintiff by filing their chief-affidavits in lieu of their chief-examination on par with the record. They clearly stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 1.11.2014 and executed suit pronote in his favour. Then, P.W.2 scribed the suit pronote and P.W.3 attested the same.

12.The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PWs.1 to P.W.3.

In spite of it, their evidence is not shaken. In fact they stood for cross- examination. No substance is elicited against the case of plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. A perusal of total evidence, the plaintiff clinchingly established the due execution of pronote by the defendant in his favour and passing of consideration. Then, a presumption under Sec.118 of N.I Act would come to rescue of P.W.1 to hold that under suit pronote the defendant 4

O.S.No.221 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and consideration was passed under it. Then, the burden shift to the defendant to rebut the evidence of plaintiff.

13.In this case, the defendant failed to adduce any ocular evidence in spite of taking adjournments and imposing costs. Hence, no evidence is adduced by the defendant. If really the defendant adduced evidence and faced cross-examination, then Court can evaluate his evidence to conclude that whether his evidence is sufficient to rebut the evidence of plaintiff. But the defendant failed to do so in adducing cogent evidence. Then, an adverse inference can be drawn against his case to hold that to evade to pay the suit amount. He taken false defence in his written statement.

14. At this juncture it is appropriate to note the judgment of Indian Bank,

Chittoor vs. R.Venkata Ramana reported in 2004(3) ALT 665 D.B., wherein his Lordship held that:

“When the defendant failed to get into witness box to let in evidence and not faced cross-examination, the averments of his defence itself is insufficient and an adverse inference can be drawn against his case”.

On the other hand, the plaintiff clinchingly established his case, in such case this

Court holds that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

15.Issue No.2:

In view of answer given under issue No.1, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

16.Issue No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs.

5

O.S.No.221 of 2017 Dt. 18-4-2018

The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of suit to date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: K.Penchalaiah. NONE PW.2: K.Narayana. PW.3: N.Subba Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINATIFF:--

Ex.A1: Original suit pronote, dt. 01.11.2014. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.18-2-2017 along with postal receipt. Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Kovur.