This court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's refusal to grant permission for an additional written statement concerning interest rates. The high court found no legal infirmity in the order that the interest dispute should be decided during the trial.
The civil revision petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2495 of 2010
Between: G.Ramanna
..... PETITIONER
AND S.Hussain Sharif
.....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2495 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.296/2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The said suit was filed for recovery of money based on simple mortgage claiming interest at 24% p.a. and the total suit amount is calculated at Rs.65,250/-. A written statement was filed by the defendant disputing that he has not borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- as pleaded by the plaintiff and he borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- only by executing a simple mortgage deed and the contracted rate of interest is only at 12% p.a. but not 24% p.a. as claimed by the plaintiff.
While so, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.577/2009 under
Or.8 Rule-9 CPC seeking to receive additional written statement contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest more than 12% p.a. on the principal amount. A counter has been filed stating that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest more than 12% p.a. as per the contractual rate of interest under the simple mortgage deed.
Having considered the contentions of both sides, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. holding that the said issue can be appreciated during course of the trial. I am of the opinion that in the instant case no additional written statement is required as the controversy with regard to the rate of interest is the subject matter to be considered by the trial Court. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The CRP is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 25.06.2010 Dsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an additional written statement seeking a lower interest rate requires allowing under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.
Whether the lower court correctly held the interest rate controversy as an issue for trial rather than permitting an additional statement.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the non-allowance of an additional written statement has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Ramanna
S.Hussain Sharif
V.ESWARAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
