IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N. K. SUDHINDRARAO REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.949/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.M.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O SONTEREDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MARDAGETTA VILLAGE, JAKKARASAKUPPA POST, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.
2. SRI.MUNIREDDY, S/O SRI.CHANGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SETTIKUNTE VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI.PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. PRAGATHI GRAMENA BANK, KYASAMBALLI BRANCH, KYASAMBALLI VILLAGE – 563 121, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, A.N.CHANDRASHEKAR.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR .C. CHANNASPUR, ADV.,) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, K.G.F., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2008 PASSED IN OS NO.207/2007 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), K.G.F..
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Presiding officer, Fast Track Court, KGF, in R.A.No.04/2009 dated 12.02.2013, whereby the learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), KGF, and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.73,000/- with interest as prayed for.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred to in terms of their rank as stood before the trial court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- Pragathi Gramin Bank filed a suit in O.S.No.207/2007 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.73,000/-, claiming that on 21.03.2002, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was borrowed by the defendant No.1 for business purposes agreeing to repay the amount together with interest. The first defendant is stated to be the borrower and the second defendant, the co-obligant.
Defendants contested the suit and denied the averments.
4. The learned Trial Judge in the Original Suit after considering the matter on execution of loan agreement, On Demand Promissory Note, Revival Letter, dismissed the suit on 31.10.2008. The plaintiff-bank preferred R.A.No.04/2009 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.207/2007. The appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Judge, by selling aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Judge in the result, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
5. It is against said Judgment and Decree the defendants have come up before this Court in the present appeal.
6. The evidence at the disposal of the learned trial judge apart from the pleadings and also before the First Appellate Court are, the oral testimony of PW.1-
A.N. Chandrashekar and PW.2-Udayanarayana Bhat and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to P12. Ex.P1 & 2 are Pronote and Agreement and Ex.P3 and P4 are Letter of Undertaking and Revival Letter.
7. Sri Pradeep Naik. K, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the trial court after assigning well and sound reasons dismissed the suit. But the learned First Appellate Judge has got confused the subject matter and erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, by allowing the appeal.
8. The learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent would submit that there was valid cause of action to the suit. The plaintiff-bank is entitled for a decree. Its claim was cogent and precise established through oral and documentary evidence apart from pleadings. The books and accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank is also supported by the presumptions in Banker’s Book Evidence Act.
9. In the background of oral and documentary evidence, it is to be noted that the plaintiff is one Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kyasamballi Branch in Bangarpet Taluk.
10. The loan amount stated to have been borrowed is Rs.50,000/-. It was borrowed on 21.03.2002. The main borrower is defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is the co-obligant. The suit was filed on 22.10.2007. However, Letter of Revival is said to have been given on 10.11.2004. It is under these circumstances, misreading of dates of events landed the entire matter in confusion, finally, leading to dismissal of the suit claim.
11. Insofar as the learned appellate Judge is concerned, at one place in Para 22 while appreciating the evidence, the date of filing the suit is mentioned as 22.10.2007, however, “Letter of Revival is dated 10.04.2004”. But, still the learned appellate Judge considers it as “within time”. Though in my firm opinion, there was no occasion to give room for confusion or misreading the documents and wrong interpretation of the oral evidence landed the suit to get decreed in the First Appellate Court.
12. This Court while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration on 12.07.2016:
1. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting decree for Rs.73,000/- ignoring Ex.P-4 revival letter when there is no signature of the appellate on the revival letter?
2. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court ignoring Ex.P-2 the agreement entered into between the parties?
3. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in contrary to inconsistent statements made in Exs.D-1 to D-7?
4. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case?
13. After hearing, the substantial question of law is reframed as under:
“Whether confusion and misreading of judgment can be gone into by the court in respect of Ex.P4-Revival Letter ?”
14. The Letter of Undertaking is Ex.P3 and Letter of Revival is Ex.P4. The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the document, date and signature on the document in question do not appear to be of the defendant. In this connection, it is necessary to place on record that the said matter was neither taken up in pleading, nor there was an issue and it cannot be considered at this stage.
15. The learned counsel for the defendants further submits that Ex.P2 to P4 are forged documents. However, in the light of non-production of any material or document worth believing, tampering of signature or falsification of books, the said claim cannot be considered.
16. The suit and disposal are on the following instances:
The plaintiff-Pragathi Gramin Bank filed a suit in O.S.No.207/2007 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.73,000/-, claiming that on 21.03.2002, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was borrowed by the defendants for business purposes agreeing to repay the amount together with interest. The first defendant is stated to be the borrower and the second defendant is stated to be the co-obligant.
17. The learned Trial Judge in the Original Suit, after considering the matter on execution of loan agreement, On Demand Promissory Note, Revival Letter, dismissed the suit.
18. Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge to conclude that the suit is not worth to be decreed does not appear to be sound and acceptable reason. The learned trial judge has gone into the matter beyond the scope of the suit to discuss on the materials on record and appreciated the evidence.
19. The learned First Appellate Judge has given proper finding that suit was not barred by limitation. Execution of revival letter is valid and enforceable under Section 25 (d) of the Contract Act. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 31.10.2008 is not sustainable and the First Appellate Judge came to the right conclusion and given a finding to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.207/2007 dated 31.10.2008 and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
20. There are no grounds made out by the appellants to allow the appeal by interfering with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Judge. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
21. In the result, appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.02.2013 passed by the First Appellate Judge in R.A.No.04/2009.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-