Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1452 (AP)

Poluru Narasimhulu v. Leela Krishna Textiles

2001-11-13

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. N. Jwala, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Mrs. Haritha, the learned Amicus curiae appointed by the Court to assist the court. ( 2 ) THE revision is filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 as against an order dated 16-1-2001 in s. R. No. 5267 in unnumbered S. C. No. . . . . . . / 2000 dated 16-10-2000 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Proddutur. The revision is filed as against an order rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is based on an unstamped promissory note and hence, the same is not maintainable. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the revision petitioner-plaintiff had instituted a suit on small cause side on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Proddutur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,000/- on the strength of an agreement-letter executed by the respondent defendant on 15-5-1998. It was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the respondent-defendant had executed an agreement-letter in his own handwriting and that the respondent-defendant paid rs. 1,000;- on 27-12-1999 and Rs. 1,000/- on 25-1-2000 and made endorsements in the note book of the respondent-defendant with the signature of the revision petitioner-plaintiff. An objection was raised on the ground that the suit is not maintainable on an unstamped promissory note. It is, no doubt, true that the document is in a printed form and as can be seen from the document it is, no doubt, named as promissory note . ( 4 ) SRI K. N. Jwala, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner had contended that, no doubt, the rejection of plaint will fall under the definition of decree. But, nevertheless, since the plaint filed on the small cause side had been rejected, as against such an order, the revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887, hereinafter referred to as the Act in short, alone is maintainable. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the recitals of the document and had contended that whether it is an agreement or letter or whether it is an unstamped promissory note are all matters to be decided at the time of trial of the suit and not at the threshold itself. The learned Counsel also further contended that the nomenclature of the document is not material. The learned Counsel also further contended that the nomenclature of the document is not material. All the recitals in the document and the substance of the document may have to be looked into in deciding whether a document falls under the description of agreement-letter or a promissory note. ( 5 ) MRS. Haritha, the learned amicus curiae had contended that Section 96 (4) of the code of Civil Procedure is a specific provision and only in certain specified cases as against a decree on small cause side, appeal lies. The provision governing the present case on hand is only Section 25 of the Act and hence, the revision is maintainable. The learned amicus curiae also had drawn my attention to the recitals of the document and also the pleadings and had pointed out that in the light of the specific pleading taken that the document is only an agreement-letter, the rejection of plaint is unsustainable. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and also the learned amicus curiae and perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) THE rejection of a plaint is, no doubt, a decree. But, however, in view of the fact that as against the main judgment and decree in a small cause suit governed by the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887, the remedy available under Section 25 of the Act is only by way of revision, in the present case, as against the rejection of the plaint also, a revision is maintainable. ( 8 ) THE next question which falls for consideration is whether the rejection of a plaint at the threshold holding that a suit on the basis of an unstamped promissory note, is not maintainable is sustainable in law? ( 9 ) IT may be relevant here to look into order VII Rule ll (d) of the Code of Civil procedure. Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that the plaint shall be rejected, "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". It is pertinent to note that the statement in the plaint is that it is only an agreement-letter. Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that the plaint shall be rejected, "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". It is pertinent to note that the statement in the plaint is that it is only an agreement-letter. Hence, this is a matter, which should have been decided at the appropriate stage, and rejection of the plaint at the threshold on that ground, in my considered opinion, is not sustainable in law. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. ( 11 ) THIS Court also records its appreciation for the assistance rendered to this Court in the matter by the learned amicus curiae.