Dismissed

Lokesh v. S Nagaraja

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2013RSA/1333/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Second Appeal dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court correctly found no material alteration in the promissory note. It further noted that even if the note was blank, the appellant remains liable under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal No.1333/2012 dismissed. Interim Application No.1/2012 also dismissed. No costs to any party.

Lokesh Vs S Nagaraja — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1333/2012 (REC-MON)

¶7

BETWEEN : Lokesh Aged 33 years S/o. Jayarama Sri. Vigneshwara Spray Painting works D. No.788/38 Ramanuja Main Road Khille Mohalla, Mysore ... APPELLANT (By Sri: P. Nataraju, Adv. For M/s. P. Nataraju Assts., Advs.) AND : S. Nagaraja Age: 40 years S/o. M.P. Srikantaiah D. No.2732/2 Shankaranarayana Swamy Temple Road Mysore 570 001 ... RESPONDENT

¶8

This RSA is filed under section 100 of CPC praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2012 in R.A.

¶9

¶10

No.474/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore, etc.

¶11

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No.474/2011 dated 12.3.2012 on the file of the Presiding officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore, whereby the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1673/2007 dated 26.10.2010 on the file of the IV Additional First Civil Judge

¶14

(Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Mysore, has been confirmed.

¶15

The appellant is the defendant in the suit and the

¶16

respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rankings before the trial Court.

¶17

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till date of realization. The case of the plaintiff is that the

¶18

¶19

defendant had availed loan of Rs.85,000/- from him by executing a promissory note Ex.P.1 and a consideration receipt agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 2% per month. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the said amount.

¶20

In the written statement, the defendant has denied execution of the promissory note and consideration receipt. It is further contended that the promissory note has been materially altered.

¶21

On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court has framed relevant issues. The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4. Promissory note was marked as Ex.P.1. The defendant got himself examined as D.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. The said decree is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶22

¶23

Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant

¶24

would contend that the promissory note executed by the defendant is a blank promissory note. Secondly, it is contended that the plaintiff has materially altered the said document. Thus, there is no dispute regarding signature of the defendant in the promissory note. It is well established that though the defendant has given the blank promissory note, he cannot be escaped from his liability to pay the amount having regard to Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The other contention that the document was materially altered, has been considered by both the Courts below in detail. The Courts below have held that there is no material alteration. The trial Court has observed that irrelevant words have been struck out in Ex.P.1 by inserting appropriate words. Ex.P.1 must have been printed in the year 2001. The document was executed on 25.7.2005. That is why, irrelevant words have been struck out. It is clear that there is no material alteration in

¶25

¶26

Ex.P.1 as contended. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

In view of dismissal of the appeal as above, I.A.

¶28

No1/2012 does not survive for consideration. It is

¶29

accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE. Cs/-

Lokesh v. S Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh v. S Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasappa Vs Kempaiah Since Dead by His Lrs

Mahadeva Naika Vs Nagamani

Smt. Kadaramma W/O Sri. Kadaraiah Vs Sri Siddaiah Since Dead by His Lr

Haliah Vs Rathnamma W/O Shankaraiah

Sri T N Narasimhaiah Vs Sri Adaviyappa

Nanjappa Vs Smt Puttamma