Admissions made by parties, burden of proof, and evidence presented are crucial in determining the entitlement to suit claim

( 1 ) THE revision is filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the unsuccessful defendant as against the judgment and decree in SC No. 30/96 dated 12-2-1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the above suit against defendant for recovery of an amount on the ground that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-8-1993 promising to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and executed the suit promissory note Ex. A1. The plaintiff also had issued a legal notice dated 28-2-1996, the office copy of which was marked as Ex. A-2 and the acknowledgment was marked as Ex. A3. The defendant had acknowledged the notice but had failed to reply. The defendant had denied the borrowing of amount on 10-8-1993 and also execution of promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The case of the defendant is that he had executed a pronote on 6-6-1988 in presence of the Sarpanch by name Komati Krishnam Raju, Uppe Someswara Rao, Veeramalla Pullayya and Rankireddi Gurrayya. It was also pleaded in the written statement that there was a money dispute between the plaintiff and defendant s family in the year 1988 and the wife of the defendant had given a police report and at the instance of the Sarpanch the promissory note was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the date and the amount were kept blank at that time and the promissory note was handed over to the said Krishnam Raju and the dispute was not settled and the plaintiff got the said promissory note and had filled the amounts and the dates and had filed the same. After receiving the legal notice the defendant approached Komati Krishnam Raju, who promised to settle the dispute and after receiving Court notice again he approached the said Krishnam Raju, who told him that the plaintiff had taken away the promissory note from him and thus the claim of the plaintiff is not enforceable. On behalf of the plaintiff PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of the defendant he had examined himself as DW1. The Court below had framed a point for consideration i. e. , "whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for ?" and had ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present civil revision petition.

( 4 ) SRI N. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-defendant had contended that he approach the Court below is totally erroneous and the Court below had totally ignored the important admissions made by PW1 in the course of cross-examination and the Court below had given a wrong finding that the said admission relates to a different transaction. The learned Counsel also had contended that the Court below also had erred in appreciating the aspect of burden of proof. The learned Counsel also had relied on G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, AIR 1987 AP 139, Putta Lakshmi Narayana Reddy v. Putta Mysura Reddy, 1996 (2) ALD 1242. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the Court below had totally erred in giving much importance to the non-giving of reply by the defendant and also non-examination of Krishnam Raju. In the light of clear admissions of PW1 there is no necessity on the part of the defendant to establish anything more and even otherwise it is for the plaintiff to explain such admissions made by him.

( 5 ) SRI Vijay Kiran representing Sri J. Venugopal Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently contended that the exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, hereinafter in short called as "act" is very limited and inasmuch as the Court below on a detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence from paragraphs 5 to 10 had arri