//
you're reading...
legal issues

small cause suit – proof of promissory note-The plaintiff besides examined himself as P.W.1 examined attestor of the Ex.A.1-promissory note as P.W.2. Though the defendant denied the execution, he did not choose to make any application seeking expert opinion on the signatures of him appearing in Ex.A.1-promissory note. Indeed, the trial Court compared the signatures of the defendant appearing on the written statement, vakalat, deposition with the signature appearing on the Ex.A.1 promissory note and came to the conclusion that they are of the one and the same person. The plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1 examined attestor as P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent and consistent. Once the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of Ex.A.1-promissory note, it is for the defendant to move an application to get the signatures appearing on Ex.A.1 promissory note examined by an expert. Such course has not been adopted by the defendant. There is no flaw in the judgment impugned in the revision.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

A promissory note issued by the Second Bank of...

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2837 of 2009

 

 

ORDER:-

 

 

This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-04-2009 passed in Small Cause Suit No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit for Rs.6,700/-basing on a promissory note, dated 10-02-2007 executed by the defendant for Rs.5,000/- in the presence of P.W.2-T.Venkat Rao promising to repay the same with 24% interest and executed A.1 promissory note.  He issued A.2-legal notice.  The defendant received the legal notice and issued Ex.A.4-reply.  There being no payment made by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the same.

The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the execution of the promissory note and also borrowing Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-02-2007.  The learned Senior Civil Judge formulated the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

On behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined attestor of Ex.A.1-promissory note as P.W.2 apart from marking four documents as Exs.A.1 to A.4.  Defendant got himself examined as D.W.1 and examined G.Linga Reddy as D.w.2.

The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A.1-promissory note by the defendant and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.  Accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment, dated 13-04-2008.  Hence this revision.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the revision.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-defendant denied the execution of the promissory note right from the time of issuing reply and the plaintiff has not taken steps to get the suit promissory note examined by an expert to prove the signatures of the defendant appearing on the promissory note and therefore the judgment impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside.

The only issue that calls for adjudication is whether the petitioner made out any valid ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed in S.C.No.9 of 2008.

The plaintiff besides examined himself as P.W.1 examined attestor of the Ex.A.1-promissory note as P.W.2.  Though the defendant denied the execution, he did not choose to make any application seeking expert opinion on the signatures of him appearing in Ex.A.1-promissory note.  Indeed, the trial Court compared the signatures of the defendant appearing on the written statement, vakalat, deposition with the signature appearing on the Ex.A.1 promissory note and came to the conclusion that they are of the one and the same person.  The plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1 examined attestor as P.W.2.  The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent and consistent.  Once the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of Ex.A.1-promissory note, it is for the defendant to move an application to get the signatures appearing on Ex.A.1 promissory note examined by an expert.  Such course has not been adopted by the defendant.  There is no flaw in the judgment impugned in the revision.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and dismissed.  There shall be no  order as to costs.

_______________________________

JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

4th March, 2011

Vjl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,342 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: