Moddu Anji Reddy vs B.Narasimha Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 3509 Tel

                                  1

                                                                      PSS, J.
                                                           A.S.No.631 of 2009



     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

             APPEAL SUIT No.631 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal suit is filed by the

appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated

21.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.392 of 2004 on the file of V

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District.

2. The suit vide O.S.No.392 of 2004 was filed by the

respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for

recovery of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs fifty thousand

only), basing on the promissory note dated 07.01.2003. The

trial Court examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5

on behalf of the plaintiff and also examined DWs.1 and 2 on

behalf of the defendant. The trial Court after considering

arguments of both sides and evidence on record, decreed the

suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said

Judgment, the defendant therein preferred the present

appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant

mainly contended that appellant/defendant had purchased

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

the poultry feed from respondent/plaintiff and there is no

transaction of taking loan from respondent/plaintiff, but the

same was not considered by the trial court. He also

contended that the trial court has erred in concluding that

the writing and signature on the promissory note was

differing with the other documents and moreover the cheque

was having two different writings and the

respondent/plaintiff has not filed original promissory note

along with plaint and there was no explanation for not filing

the said document. He further contended that the trial court

ought to have considered that the legal notice and plaint are

not having the date of promissory note and the

respondent/plaintiff is not fair, as in his chief-examination,

he stated that the case under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 was dismissed, but in his cross-

examination he stated that the said case was decreed in his

favour. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the

Judgment of the trial court.

4. The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and

defendant as arrayed in the trial court for the sake of

convenience.

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was

a business man and supplying poultry feed and the

defendant was also doing the same business and got

acquaintance with the plaintiff. On such acquaintance,

at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff advanced a

hand loan of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs fifty

thousand only) to the defendant on 07.01.2003 and the

defendant also agreed to repay the same with interest at

the rate of 12% per annum within 6 months and also

executed promissory note in the presence of one Satyam

and M.Ravinder. Though the defendant agreed to repay

the amount within six (6) months from the date of

receiving the hand loan i.e., 07.01.2003, he did not

repay the said amount. The defendant issued a cheque

bearing No.148896 dated 22.10.2003 for Rs.6,50,000/-

drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, Vanasthalipuram

Branch, Hyderabad to the plaintiff stating that he will

pay the amount in cash and take back the cheque, as

such plaintiff waited till November, but the defendant

never turned-up and defendant also stated that he has

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

money in the bank and asked the plaintiff to present the

cheque. When the plaintiff presented the cheque on

24.11.2003, it was dishonoured with an endorsement

"account closed". Thereafter, he informed the same to

the defendant and got issued legal notice dated

09.12.2003, but the defendant did not give any reply

and thus plaintiff filed the suit. He did not file the

original promissory note along with the plaint. He stated

that it was not traceable at the time of filing the suit,

and when it is traceable, it was filed. He filed a Photostat

copy of the cheque with original endorsement letter of the

Vysya Bank dated 25.11.2003, original postal receipt and

acknowledgement before the trial Court. Plaintiff has also

stated that defendant was running poultry farm business

and other house-hold articles business to make the payment

to the creditors and thus requested the Court to decree the

suit along with interest.

6. The defendant filed the written statement, in which, he

admitted that plaintiff was doing poultry business and he

was also a businessman, farmer and running poultry farm

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

but he denied other material allegations regarding taking of

hand loan and alleged that the plaintiff got forged and

fabricated the promissory note with the help of one Satyam

and Ravinder. He also stated that he never issued any

cheque for Rs.6,50,000/- and he never received any legal

notice. He mainly contended that he knows plaintiff as

plaintiff was supplying poultry feed from the year 1991 till

July, 2003. In the month of July, 2003, in the last

consignment of poultry feed dated 29.07.2003 supplied by

the plaintiff, it was found short supply of 10 Quintals of

D.G.N.C Poultry Feed which was noticed on 03.08.2003.

When the defendant got weighed the same in the presence of

plaintiff one A.Jagpal Reddy, Karingu, Kushpal Reddy and

others at Sri Sheshadri Weigh Bridge, Mangalampally X

Roads, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, he along with other farmers

questioned the plaintiff regarding cheating made by him.

Therefore, plaintiff keeping grudge against him, forged his

signature and fabricated the promissory note and cheque

and filed a false suit and thus requested the Court to

dismiss the suit.

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

7. PW1 in his evidence reiterated the contents of plaint. In

his cross-examination, he stated that he knows the

defendant from the last 10 to12 years. Defendant was

visiting the shop of plaintiff and got acquaintance with him,

but he stated that plaintiff was not supplying poultry feed to

the defendant regularly, only in case of emergency defendant

used to purchase feed from plaintiff and at the time of

purchase of feed defendant used to pay in cash and never

issued any cheque. He denied the shortage in supply of

poultry feed on 29.07.2003 as alleged by the defendant. It

was suggested to him that in Ex.A1 promissory note,

signature of the defendant was fabricated, but he denied it.

It was also suggested that one Satyam and Ravinder were his

friends and defendant has no friendship with them, but the

same was denied by him and stated that defendant after

giving the cheque, asked the plaintiff to present the same

after one month and accordingly he presented the cheque on

24.11.2003. He also stated that he filed a cheque bounce

case against the defendant and the same was ended in

acquittal. It was suggested that he got prepared the legal

notice by 23.11.2003 itself and presented the cheque for

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

collection purposefully on 24.11.2003 and to suit his

convenience in the plaint, the date was corrected as

09.12.2023, but he denied the same.

8. PW2 is the attestor of the promissory note, in the

cross-examination he stated that on 07.01.2003 defendant

approached him and he in turn took the defendant to the

house of the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to lend money

and paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the defendant and the defendant

after receiving money executed promissory note, signed on it

and he signed on the promissory note as one of the

witnesses. He further stated that when he met plaintiff after

1½ years from the date of transaction, plaintiff stated that

the defendant has not repaid the said amount. PW2

admitted his signature on promissory note as attestor and

also admitted that he was present at the time of execution of

Ex.A1 and he went there at the instance of

appellant/defendant.

9. DW1 in his evidence reiterated the contents of his

written statement. In his cross-examination, he admitted

that the signature shown to him on the Chief-examination

belong to him. He was doing poultry business since 1982. 7

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

to 8 years after he started poultry business, plaintiff started

supply of poultry feeds to him and he used to take poultry

feed for every 5 to 6 days by paying cash and he has taken

poultry feed from the plaintiff from 1991 to 2003. He

admitted that he maintained account with Vysya Bank and

the said bank issued a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to him and

stated that he did not remember when he received the loan

amount and when he repaid the same to the bank. He

admitted that Ex.A1 was the cheque issued by him to the

plaintiff in the year 2003. Ex.A3 was the original

endorsement of the Vysya Bank returned cheque memo

dated 25.11.2003. He also admitted issuance of legal notice

by the plaintiff and he got issued reply to the said legal

notice. He also stated that he know Ravinder, who signed as

an attestor on Ex.A1 and stated that attestor No.1 Satyam

was the partner of plaintiff. He also admitted that he gave

cheque to the plaintiff, but he denied that he issued the said

cheque under Ex.A2 on the said date and further stated that

he gave blank cheque only at the beginning of feed supply

transaction between himself and plaintiff.

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

10. DW2 was examined on behalf of DW1 and he clearly

admitted that plaintiff never supplied any poultry feed and

he had no acquaintance with the signature of the defendant

and he did not know anything about the suit claim between

the plaintiff and the defendant and further admitted that he

did not sign on any document at the time of weighing poultry

feed.

11. Now it is for this Court to see whether the Judgment of

the trial court is on proper appreciation of facts or not?

12. The main contention of the appellant/defendant herein

is that the date of the promissory note was not mentioned in

the plaint and the original promissory note was not enclosed

with the plaint and the reason for not enclosing the same

was also not stated. Perusal of the plaint shows that

defendant received hand loan from the plaintiff and executed

promissory note with an assurance to repay the same within

six (6) months. So also, it is clearly stated that the original

promissory note was not traced out, as such it could not be

filed along with plaint. Later, it was marked through PW1,

therefore the argument of the appellant's/defendant's

counsel is not tenable and another contention of the

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

appellant/defendant is that he was supplied poultry feed by

the plaintiff and during the last consignment, when it was

question by him and other farmers regarding the shortage of

10 quintals of poultry feed, plaintiff bore grudge against him

and forged the document. Plaintiff was examined as PW1

and the attestor as PW2 and original promissory note was

filed under Ex.A1 and the cheque issued by the

appellant/defendant was marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the

original endorsement of the Vysya Bank returned cheque

memo dated 25.11.2003. Ex.A4 is the original copy of legal

notice dated 09.12.2003 and Ex.A5 is the original postal

receipt and acknowledgement dated 09.12.2003. Defendant

clearly admitted that he issued cheque for Rs.6,50,000/-

and the said cheque was issued for the supply of poultry

feed but he has not filed any document to substantiate his

version. Whereas, the plaintiff contended that defendant

executed promissory note under Ex.A1, but did not repay the

amount. When he repeatedly requested him, he issued

cheque under Ex.A2, but it was also returned under Ex.A3,

as such he got issued legal notice, even then the amount

was not paid, he filed suit for recovery of amount. Though

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

the defendant stated that he got issued reply to the legal

notice, he has not filed the same before the Court. Ex.A2

bears the signature of the defendant. The trial court raised

presumption under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and 188

of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of plaintiff, as the

defendant received a considerable amount as mentioned in

the promissory note and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Though

the presumption is a rebuttable presumption, defendant

failed to rebut the same by adducing cogent and convincing

evidence. Though the defendant contended that the plaintiff

has fabricated the promissory note, he failed to send the

same to hand writing expert. As the defendant failed to send

the same for expert opinion his argument is not tenable. The

trial Court also observed that defendant has not filed weigh

slip of poultry feed to substantiate his version.

The trial court dealt with all the issues in detail and rightly

decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. This Court finds no

reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial court and

the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the appeal suit is devoid of merits

and is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

dated 21.04.2009 in O.S.No.392 and 2004 passed by

the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track

Court) Rangareddy District. There shall be no order as

to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

Dt.02-11-2023.

krl

PSS, J.

A.S.No.631 of 2009

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

A.S.No.631 OF 2009

Dt.02.11.2023

krl