This civil revision petition challenged an order striking out respondents from a money recovery suit based on promissory notes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the trial court correctly applied that suit lies only against executants of the note and that Section 92 Evidence Act bars oral evidence for differing agreements.
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
WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2011
Between: Smt. K. Uma Goud … Petitioner-Plaintiff V/s. Bathini Lingam Goud & Anr. … Respondents-Defendants]
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Batchu Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared
The Court made the following : (Order follows next page).
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2011
O R D E R :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 08-4-2011 passed in I.A.No. 409 of 2011 in OS.No. 22 of 2010 by the District Judge, Nizamabad, allowing the application filed by the respondents-defendants 2 and 3 under Order-1, Rule 10 (2) r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to strike out their names from the main suit.
2. The Revision Petitioner-Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.13,60,000=00 with interest and costs against the defendant No.1 and respondents-defendants 2 and 3. The promissory notes were executed by the first defendant.
3. The contention of the revision petitioner is that on the assurance given by respondents (defendants 2 and 3) the revision petitioner-plaintiff advanced the amount to the first respondent and they are necessary parties to the suit. The respondents (defendants 2 and 3) filed an application under Order-1, Rule 10 (2) r/w section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to strike out their names, as they are not necessary parties to the suit.
4. The suit basing on a promissory note can be filed against the executant of the promissory note i.e., borrower or if there are any guarantors against them. The defendants 2 and 3 did not sign the promissory note as guarantors. The suit basing on a promissory note shall be between the parties to the promissory note. The learned trial Court rightly held referring to section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, that when there is a written agreement or contract between the parties the evidence as to any differenht oral agreement is not admissible and no evidence contrary to the terms of the said document in writing can be given. The learned trial Court is right in holding that even though the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 are members of the Hindu Joint Family since the amount was borrowed by the first defendant for his personal necessity the suit does not lie against D2 and D3. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court requiring interference in this revision.
5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.
08-09-2011 I s L
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2011
Circulation No. 45 Date:08-09-2011 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Defendants 2 and 3 are necessary parties to a suit on promissory notes executed solely by the first Defendant for personal necessity.
Whether the district judge erred in striking out the names of Defendants 2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. K. Uma Goud
Bathini Lingam Goud & Anr.
R. Kantha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
