An appeal under Section 96 of CPC against a decree in a chit fund recovery suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appellants failed to establish non-reflection of payments and the lower court was correct in deeming the respondent had proved the claim.
The appeal is dismissed with 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.
[3258 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
APPEA SU lT NO: 3589 OF 2004
Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 1010812004 made in OS No.925 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the lt Additionat Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Between:
AND
( Re s po nd e n ts 2 a nd 3'
1:. flEtdF3"TEft fSfl i'^li, +i iT BE??, o * rs 2 & s
For the Appellants : SRI M.NARENDER REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.OURGA PRASAD, Advocate
The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT
HONOU I.ABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA ITAO NAIDU
A.S.No.35 89 of 2004
]UDG MENT:
This is arr appeal suit filed by three (3) ap[):rlarts, who are defendants I\ 1.1, 3 and 4 in the original suit vidc ,1.S, No.925 of 2001 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil ludge, \/i,rangal. Being aggrieved by t1e Judgment and Decree of the t-i,,rl (_ourt in the above referrr d suit dated 10-08-2004, the appe l,rrrts rerein have filed the appr al on the following grounds:
2
SSRN,] A.s.No.3589 ot 2004
3
I i i I
SSRN,] 4.S.No.3589 of 2004
trial Court r rrrnted exorbitant interest anrJ costs thereby, they sought for st tt nq aside the judgment and decree :,assed in favour of the 1st res )onc,ent/plaintiff.
4
1 ! l i i I I
55RN,J A.S.No.35a9 of 2OO4
installments from 16-07-2000 and failed topay the amount inspite of repeated demands and legal notice thatwas issued by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was filed for an amountof Rs.2,84,003/-. Out of the five(5) defendants,D2 toD5 remained absent and were set exparte, thereby, D1 alone contested the suit. According to the statement filed by hlm, the 1'tdefendant has claimed that the suit isnot maintainable, the plaintiffdid not demand for payment of theinstallments,suit was filed for wrongful gains, the interest wasnot correctly calculated, and while disputing the other averments ofthe plaint, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
B. On the basis of theabove contentions, the trial Court framed three (3) issues withregard to the claim made by the plaintiff. The following are the issues framedby the trial Court:
5
ssRfi.j A.S. No.1589 of 2004
I I ! ! i I 1 I 1r
the plaintiff is e ntitled to suit claim, thereby lterssed an order directinq thr rleiendants to pay the suit amoLnl with interest @ l2o/oper . lnurn from the date of suit till the dz t.t,: of decree and @ 6%per a )nurn frorn the date of decree tili :lt:, realization on principle am( rnt cf Rs.2,52,570/-.
POINT
6
SSRN,I A.S No 3589 of 2004
such a case. the burden is heavily on these appellants to establish that they made payments which are not reflected in the suit and they have got proof in support of the said claim. But except cross examining PW.1 during which nothing extra could be elicited, these appellants or atleast the 1't defendant could not establish their contention. The trial Court having examined the evldence ofPW.1 and having considered Exs.Al to A14, came to theconclusion that the case of plaintlff gets support from the oral evidence ofPW.1 and documents marked as Exs.A1 to A14. The Courtbelow held that the plaintiffproved the case and defendants failed topay the due amount. Therefore, in the absence of anyproof that they have made some morepayments which were notreflected, the appellants cannot claim that they are entitled tosoughtfor setting aside the decree. Therefore, absolutelythereare no groundsand the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applicationsif any, are closed.
No Costs.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTYREGISTRAR Ao SECTIONOFFICER
To 1. The ll AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge' Warang'l'- -..^, i. ci;;'be 6b;i'ilt.r'r"i"no"r.Reddv' Advocate Io.PUCl 5. 5.# 6d i;s; e ows"Prasad' AdvocateIoPUC] 4. Two CDCoPies K
\
1
l l l I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610912022
JUDGMENT
AS.No.3589 of 200 t
I 17rt _-.=:->1 rE sI.l),..
'+' .)'
)
,) i\tAR 70?3 i l
;
a.
i... \ ,'
APPEAL IS DISMI: iSED.
6 .2-
7)
[32sE ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTHDAY OFSEPTETMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
APPEAL SUIT NO: 3589 OF 2004
Between:
AND
Appeal under Section 96 of CPCagainst the Judgment and Decreeof the Court oi the ll Additional SeniorCivilJudge, Warangaldated 10/08/2004in OS No.925 of 2001.
ORDER: This appeal coming onfor hearingand upon perusing the groundsof appeal, the Judgment and decreeof the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri tvl.Narender Reddy, Advocatefor the Appellants and of Sri P.Durga Prasad,Advocate for the Respondent No1
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER
Kj
<br>
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610912022
DECREE
AS.No.3589 of 200 I
APPEAL IS DISMIS SED.
l<br>I -<br>')--
.l->
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants successfully established that payments made by them to the respondent were not reflected in the statement of account?
Whether the lower court committed an erroneous view in decreeing the suit when the appellants had taken a specific plea of payment?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Laxminarayana Medical Agencies
G. Nagarjuna Patel
P Vijay Kumar
Margadarshi Chit Fund (P) Ltd
V. Satyanarayana Murthy
K Ravinder
Sambasiva Rao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
