Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 1423
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM
A.Sathish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Sabbineni Chinnaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 12-12-02
Headnote:
Money Lenders Act, 1349 - Section 9 – Money – Lender - Criminal cases – Circumstances - Statement denying execution suit – Maintainable - Plaintiff denied that defendant was his advocate in any criminal case - Lower Court stated in its judgment that defendant did not let in evidence to show that he appeared for plaintiff in any criminal case - Therefore his version regarding circumstances under which the suit promissory note was allegedly brought into existence by plaintiff is belied by evidence on record - Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 before Trial Court - Defendant examined himself as DW1 before Trial Court - According plaintiff defendant borrowed amount and executed suit promissory note and that defendant himself – Held, Counsel for petitioner contends that Trial Court compared admitted signatures defendant with disputed signatures and it is bad in law - It is to be stated that judgment of Trial Court is not based on mere comparison - Trial Court considered evidence plaintiff as well as defendant and gave finding that defendant executed suit promissory note – Therefore just because trial Court also compared disputed signatures with admitted signatures judgment Trial Court is not liable to be set aside - It is a general plea - He did not dispute that plaintiff is not a money lender - He did not take plea that plaintiff is a money and plaintiff has not obtained a license and therefore suit is not maintainable - There must be a specific plea for framing an appropriate issue by Trial Court - petition dismissed
( 1 ) THE revision petition is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2001 in SC No. 17 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, nalgonda. CMP 11579 of 2002 is filed to permit the revision petitioner to take the additional ground in the revision petition to the effect that the Trial Court ought to have framed and decided the legal issue under Section 9 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli as to whether the plaintiff is a money lender and what is the legal effect thereof if he is proved to be a money lender and whether the suit sc 17 of 1998 is maintainable.
( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is a practicing advocate. The respondent filed the suit stating that on 27-3-1995, the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note ex. Al and did not discharge the debt in spite of demands. The defendant filed written statement denying execution of the suit promissory note Ex. Al. He pleaded that he was the advocate of the plaintiff in two criminal cases, the plaintiff did not pay him the fees due, a quarrel took place between them regarding the fee and therefore, the plaintiff brought into existence Ex. Al promissory note. The plaintiff denied that the defendant was his advocate in any criminal case. The lower Court stated in its judgment that the defendant did not let in evidence to show that he appeared for the plaintiff in any criminal case. Therefore his version regarding the circumstances under which the suit promissory note was allegedly brought into existence by the plaintiff is belied by the evidence on record. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 before the Trial Court. Defendant examined himself as DW1 before the Trial Court. According to the plaintiff, defendant borrowed the amount and executed suit promissory note and that the defendant himself is the scribe of Ex. Al. In his evidence the defendant denied that he executed the promissory note. He also denied his alleged signature in Ex. Al. On a consideration of 147 2003131 ALD May 15" entire evidence, the Trial Court believed the evidence of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by that order, the defendant preferred the present revision petition.
( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that even according to the evidence of plaintiff as pw1, his sister was present at the time of execution of promissory note and she was not examined by the plaintiff. The sister of the plaintiff is not an attestor of suit promissory note Ex. A1. Non-examination of the sister of plaintiff is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff.
( 4 ) ON appreciating the evidence of plaintiff as well as the defendant and after comparison of the admitted signatures of the defendant available in the Court record, the Trial Court gave a categorical finding of fact to the effect that Ex. Al promissory note is true and genuine and defendant executed it. There are no reasons for me to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court which is based on evidence on record.
( 5 ) AS per Section 9 of A. P. Telangana area Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli, in a suit relating to a loan, the Court shall frame and decide the issue whether the money lender is a money lender as defined in section 2 (7) of the Act and whether he has complied with the provisions of Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act. As per the above provisions, a money lender is bound to obtain a licence from the competent authority for doing money lending business.
( 6 ) THE interim application is filed to permit the revision petitioner to raise the said plea attracting the provision under section 9 of the Act. It is to be stated that the said petition is not filed to permit the defendant to amend his written statement. It is stated in the petition that the question to be raised by the revision petitioner is a pure legal question. I am unable to agree with the said contention. Whether the plaintiff is a mone
