A common order dismissing two civil revision petitions filed against orders by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, that dismissed interlocutory applications regarding the validity of a promissory note.
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2074 and 2030 of 2013 Date: 21-11-2013
COMMON ORDER:
These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order dated 14.03.2013 in I.A.Nos.173 and 172 of 2013 in O.S.No.93 of 2011 respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. The petitioner is the defendant in the original suit.
The respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- on the basis of Ex.A1 promissory note. The specific case of the petitioner herein is that a blank signed promissory note was given to Prakashmal Finance, Sakarpet, Chennai, and one A.Nagoor Reddy signed as witness in the year 1998. It is also his case that later loan was cleared to the said finance company but the promissory note was not returned to him. Subsequently, disputes arose between himself and the said A.Nagoor Reddy and at the instance of A.Nagoor Reddy, the present suit has been filed.
The main contention of the petitioner is that he signed the promissory note in the year 1998 at Chennai, Tamilnadu State. His specific case is that he did not execute any promissory note at Gudur, as alleged by the plaintiff. It is also his case that revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1 were not available at Gudur.
The lower Court observed that even assuming that the stamps were released in Tamilnadu State during the year 1998, it cannot be said that those stamps cannot be used in Gudur and accordingly dismissed the interlocutory applications. The lower Court also
observed that no useful purpose would be served in sending promissory note to the Government Printing Press, Nasik, to find out the date of release of stamp affixed on Ex.A1, promissory note.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no bar to use the revenue stamps released in one State in other States. The revenue stamps released in one state may be in certain circumstances used in other States. The crucial aspect whether Ex.A1 was executed at Chennai or at Gudur has to be decided basing on the evidence adduced by both the parties. The point whether the stamps were released in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in the State of Tamilnadu, may not be relevant since the stamps could be used in any State.
Subject to the observation made, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.
____________________ (B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J)
Date: 21-11-2013 Pab
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2074 and 2030 of 2013
Date: 21-11-2013
pab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing interlocutory applications should be interfered with given the controversy regarding the execution place of the promissory note and validity of revenue stamps.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in the civil revision petitions filed against the dismissal of interim applications.
Defendant in O.S.No.93 of 2011
Plaintiff in O.S.No.93 of 2011
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
