HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.986 of 2013 Date : 6-6-2014 Between :
Voosa Sailaja and others ..
Appellants And Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Ongole, Prakasam District .. Respondents Counsel for appellants : Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty Counsel for respondent : Sri P. Durga Prasad The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 9-12-2010 in A.S.No.44/2009 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Ongole whereby he has confirmed the Judgment and decree dated 10-11- 2008 in O.S.No.119/2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.
The respondent has filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of Rs.2,16,371/- together with future interest and costs. The plea of the respondent is based on the chit allegedly subscribed by appellant No.1 and guaranteed by appellant Nos.2 to 7.
Appellant No.1 filed a written statement, which was adopted by appellant Nos.2 to 5 and 7, wherein she has inter alia stated that the suit is premature as the chit was in force by the date of filing of the suit and that without termination of the chit, the respondent intentionally filed the suit against the appellants in the absence of any default. The trial Court, based on the respective pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :
1. Whether the suit is pre-mature?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as claimed?
3. To what relief?
While dealing with Issue No.1, the trial Court rendered a finding that as per the evidence of PW-1, appellant No.1 has paid 30 instalments and committed default in payment of subsequent 20 instalments. The trial Court has therefore held that the suit was not premature. It has also held that appellant No.1 has not denied borrowing of the chit amount. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court.
The fact that appellant No.1 has subscribed to the chit and received the money is not disputed. The only substantive plea raised by her that the suit was premature was negatived, and in my opinion rightly, by both the Courts below. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Second Appeal, SAMP No.2576/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-6-2014 AM