THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.86 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.06.2007 in O.S.No.1429 of 2005 passed by the learned IV-Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1429 of 2005 for recovery of Rs.8,51,000/- due on promissory note dated 05.10.2002 with subsequent interest and costs. Plaintiff was examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and the defendant was examined as D.W.1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant in the suit preferred the present appeal suit.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant mainly contended that the trial Court erred in holding that appellant/defendant has admitted his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note, though his case is that Ex.A1 does not contain his signature. The respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 by the appellant and passing of 2 consideration, as he denied the execution of Ex.A1, the entire burden shifts on the plaintiff, but the trial Court relied upon the presumptions and assumptions under Section 118 of the N.I.Act decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. He also contended that the trial Court erred in awarding interest on interest. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
4. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount basing on the promissory note executed by the appellant/defendant on 05.10.2002. In the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, he denied the execution of promissory note and stated that he never borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff at any point of time. Respondent/plaintiff, along with several other persons who are inimical to him, ganged up and filed the suit against him. He also stated that promissory note filed by the respondent/plaintiff was a fabricated document. In fact, respondent/plaintiff has no means to advance such huge amount and he has no necessity to borrow the said amount and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 and thus requested the Court dismiss the suit.
3
5. The respondent/plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence affidavit. He stated that due to acquaintance and friendly relationship between him and appellant/defendant, he lent a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant to meet his domestic and other necessities and the appellant/defendant had also executed promissory note on 05.10.2002 in the presence of one P.V.S.S.N.Murthy and K.V.Ramalingacharyulu and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month. Though he requested the appellant/defendant to repay the said amount for several times, he was evading the same. Hence, he issued legal notice dated 23.09.2005 and it was received by the defendant on 24.09.2005, but he did not give any reply and also not repaid the said amount, as such he has no other option except to file the suit for recovery of amount.
6. The respondent/plaintiff filed Ex.A1 promissory note, Ex.A2 copy of the legal notice, Ex.A3 Certificate of posting dated 23.09.2005 and Exs.A4 and A5 postal acknowledgments before the trial Court, but he was not Cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the defendant, as such his evidence remains unchallenged.
4
7. The appellant/defendant denied all the averments of the plaint, but in the Cross-examination he stated that he was under suspension from the service of State Government and he also admitted that Ex.A1 bears his signature. He further admitted that the address mentioned under Exs.A2, A3 and A5 pertains to him. He stated that he is having two children namely Naveen and Krishnaveni. It was suggested to him that Ex.A5 was acknowledged by his son, but he denied it.
8. In spite of service of legal notice, appellant/defendant has not given any reply, as such respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount. The appellant/defendant did not Cross-examine P.W.1 for the reasons best known to him and hence the trial Court clearly held that the evidence of P.W.1 was unchallenged. The appellant/defendant has also admitted his signature on Ex.A1 and once he admits his signature, it is presumed that it is supported by consideration as per the presumptions under Section 118 of N.I.Act. The trial Court held that unless it is rebutted by the defendant, presumptions can be raised in favour of the plaintiff. P.W.1 filed the original document of promissory note under Ex.A1 and defendant has admitted his signature and he has not Cross-examined P.W.1, but P.W.1 stated that he gave the said amount in the presence 5 of two witnesses whose names are mentioned in Ex.A1. The appellant/defendant stated that he has no necessity to receive amount from the plaintiff, but he himself admitted that he was under suspension, as such his argument that he has no necessity to receive the amount cannot be accepted. Though the appellant/defendant stated that respondent/plaintiff has no capacity to pay huge amount, he has not adduced any evidence.
9. No doubt, it is for the respondent/plaintiff to prove his case and he cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendant. In this case, respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he also filed original promissory note along with legal notice and postal receipts, but he was not Cross-examined by the defendant, as such he has not examined any other witnesses. Though the appellant/defendant claim that there is no passing of consideration under the promissory note, he has not adduced any rebuttal evidence and he has not even Cross-examined P.W.1, as such it was rightly held by the trial Court that promissory note was executed by the appellant/defendant and it is supported by consideration. Therefore, it needs no interference. The appellant/defendant further contended that the trial Court erred in granting interest on interest. In fact, the case of the respondent/plaintiff is that appellant/defendant 6 borrowed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, as such he filed suit for recovery of Rs.8,51,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Interest was granted from the date of suit not from the date of execution of promissory note, as such it cannot be said that trial Court granted interest on interest. Therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court in granting the interest is on proper lines.
10. In the result, the appeal suit is devoid of merits and is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the trial Court dated 14.06.2007 in O.S.No.1429 of 2005. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 11.09.2023 tri 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.86 of 2008 DATE: 11.09.2023 TRI