THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.37 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.207 of 2012 dated 23.11.2020 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in dismissing the suit filed by him for recovery of money based on promissory note.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,85,000/-. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and the defendant were acquainted with each other for a long time and out of their acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff during December, 2009 and requested to advance a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to meet his urgent business needs and promised that he would repay the said amount within one year. Accordingly, the plaintiff considered his request and advanced the said sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant on 07.12.2009 at his residence at Secunderabad. While receiving the said sum, the defendant executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ Rs.2.30 ps. per month. The said transaction was witnessed by two witnesses, namely, R.Mahammed Takhi and B.Suryanarayana. After receiving the said sum, the defendant had not repaid either the principal or any monthly interest. The defendant did not keep up his words and did not discharge any part of his liability. As there was no positive action, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested to repay the amount as agreed. The defendant did not bother to make the payment. The plaintiff made several requests, but the defendant did not come forward to make the payment. As such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 04.08.2012 through his counsel demanding the defendant to repay the amount with interest within seven days from the date of receipt of notice and to discharge the liability. The defendant received the legal notice on 13.08.2012 and got issued a reply notice through his counsel on 18.08.2012 and 24.09.2012 with fictitious narrations and requested to furnish a photocopy of the said demand promissory note. The plaintiff after receipt of said reply notices, got issued another notice dated 29.09.2012 enclosing the photo copy of the said promissory note. As the defendant had not evinced any interest for repayment of loan amount even after receipt of legal notice, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards principal and a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- towards interest @ Rs.2.30 ps. per month on the principal loan amount from 07.12.2009 to 15.11.2012 in total 35 months 08 days till the date of filing the suit, for a total claim amount of Rs.10,85,500/-.

4. The defendant filed written statement contending that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and also contended that he never took any amount from the plaintiff at Secunderabad or at any other place and that he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff either on 07.12.2009 or on any other date. The defendant did not even know the two persons i.e. R.Mahammed Takhi and B.Suryanarayana mentioned in the plaint. The defendant never met or saw them. Evidently, they were the followers and henchmen of the plaintiff. The defendant received a notice on 04.08.2012 from Sri P.S.N Murthy, Advocate of Secunderabad on behalf of the plaintiff. Surprised at the said notice, the defendant gave a reply dated 18.08.2012 denying about the loan and requesting for furnishing a photostat copy of the alleged pronote. The notice was received by the Advocate on 24.08.2012, but the copy of the pronote was not sent. The defendant gave a further reply dated 24.09.2012 to Sri P.S.N Murthy stating about the failure to send a copy of the pronote. The plaintiff got a further reply issued on 29.09.2012 with false allegations, however, enclosing a photostat copy of the promissory note. After seein