IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs revision. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The execution of the promissory note is admitted but the defendant pleaded that it is not fully supported by consideration and that certain payments were made by him in partial discharge of the pro-note debt. The decree was passed by the learned District ivlunsif, Punganur on 31-1-1990. Pleading that on 31-1-1990, the defendant was at Bangalore and was not able to attend the Munsif court due to illhealth, he filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The learned District, Munsif rejected that I. A. , at the S. R. stage holding that the suit docket dated 31-1-1990 shows that it was represented that the defendant had no evidence and as such, the suit was decreed on merits and hence, the petition filed under Order 9, rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable.

( 2 ) ON appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, found in paragraph 6 of his judgment that on 31-1-1990, to which date the suit stood posted for the defendant s evidence, the defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document