1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT MADHIRA
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2019
Present: Sri K.Srikanth,
Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Madhira FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.
O.S.No.161/2018
Between: Karnati Krishna Reddy, S/o. Balireddy, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Inagali village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam district. …….Plaintif
And
Pillutla Saidulu, S/o. Sriramulu, Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o. Madhira village and Mandal, Khammam district. …….Defendant This suit is coming before me on 22.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the Plaintif-and defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Plaintif filed this suit for recovery of money basing on promissory note.
2.In this case, summons on defendant were duly served, but he did not choose to appear either personally or through his advocate. He did not choose to deny or contest. He remained exparte.
3.In the plaintif side ex parte evidence, he was examined as PW-1 and he produced Ex.A-1 to A-3.
4.Heard learned counsel for plaintif and perused the record.
5.Now the point for determination is;
Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claimed amount with interest from defendant as prayed?
6.POINT:
(i)PW-1 Karnati Krishna Reddy is plaintif himself. He deposed that he lent
Rs.30,000/- to defendant on 22.12.2015 for his family needs. the Said transaction took place at the house of plaintif Inagali village of Yerrupalem mandal, Khammam district.
(ii)PW-1 further deposed that defendant borrowed above amount promising to repay the same with interest @ Rs.2/- per one hundred rupees per month and the transaction took place Inagali village of Yerrupalem mandal, Khammam district within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
(iii)PW-1 further deposed that defendant executed the promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest either to plaintif or to his order but he did not choose to repay any amount due thereunder. PW-1 further deposed that he made several oral demands but defendant dodged the payment on some pretext or other. At last on 07.12.2018, PW-1 issued legal notice to the defendant to discharge the loan amount. The defendant received the legal 2 notice and kept quiet.
(iv)In this case, the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 proved the execution of promissory note under Ex.A-1 by defendant. The promissory note is a negotiable instrument and it is not required by law to be attested.
Therefore, it is not mandatory for plaintif to examine attestors as a witness.
The oral evidence of PW-1 is believed to prove the execution of Ex.A-1 by defendant.
(v)When execution is duly proved, this court is duty bound to invoke the legal presumptions on passing of consideration etc., under Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case, defendant did not deny or contest. In the light of presumptions, the onus to rebut the presumptions shifts on defendant, but he did not choose to deny and contest. He failed to rebut the presumptions against him. Therefore, the suit is entitled to be decreed.
(vi)RATE OF INTEREST:
In this case, rate of interest was calculated from the date of suit transaction @ Rs.2/- per one hundred rupees per month. Such rate is acceptable because it is agreed rate of interest as per terms between plaintif and defendant. Such rate of interest for pendent lite period is also being granted under Section 34 CPC because it is treated as not usurious and not excessive in the light of market trends. All pending litigation shows same rate of interest to understand trend in borrowing transactions in general.
7.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for Rs.51,000/- (Rupees fifty one thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on
principal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).
Typed to computer by the Steno-Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2019.
FAC. Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS : NIL. P.W.1: K.Krishna Reddy
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dt.22.12.2015 Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.07.12.2018 Ex.A3 is the copy of postal acknowledgment receipt dt.13.12.2018 DEFENDANTS: NIL.
FAC. Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.
Corrections carried out by:
3