Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2631 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra v. Ram Narayan

2005-09-30

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-In fact, initially the defendant-appellant had filed civil second appeal before this Court challenging the validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and decree dated 05.07.2000 but, pecuniary limit of the subject matter not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-in view of Section 102, CPC, this Court by order dated 12.2003 held that the appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, at the request of the appellant for treating the memo of appeal to be a revision petition, the appeal has been ordered to be treated as revision subject to objections which may be available to the respondents. 2. Facts of the case indicate that plaintiff-respondent filed suit on 10.12.1993 on the averments that the petitioner took Rs. 5000/-from him as a loan and agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1.60 ps per month. The defendant-petitioner executed a pronote in presence of the witnesses alongwith a receipt. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 before the Debt Relief Court, Raisinghnagar but the said application was rejected against which the plaintiff filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Sriganganagar. The learned District Judge by his order dated 10.12.1993 dismissed the revision petition. After dismissal of the revision petition, the plaintiff filed suit praying, inter alia, that he is entitled for exclusion of time spent in the proceedings taken up bona fide before wrong Forum. 3. The defendant-petitioner filed his written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint that he ever took loan of Rs. 5000/-from the plaintiff -respondent and agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1.60 ps per month. The defendant also denied having executed any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff . It was also stated that the defendant stated in his reply to the application filed before the Debt Relief Court that he is not an agriculturist and he is a teacher which was known to the plaintiff and still the plaintiff took up proceedings against him in the wrong Court. The defendant contended that the plaintiff s application was rightly rejected by the Debt Relief Court and since, he was not entitled to any relief , the revision petition filed by him was also dismissed. 4. The defendant contended that the plaintiff s application was rightly rejected by the Debt Relief Court and since, he was not entitled to any relief , the revision petition filed by him was also dismissed. 4. Raising additional plea, the defendant alleged in the written statement that, in fact, a close relative of the defendant, Umrao purchased a truck and, therefore, he took loan from one Shivraj Bhadoo. After repayment of certain amounts, some amount remained and limitation of the debt was to expire whereupon the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of said Shivraj Bhadoo. He alleged that as a matter of fact no consideration passed in between them and the amount of Rs. 5000/-alongwith interest amount of Rs. 500/-was paid by one Giluram on behalf of the defendant. The defendant alleged that he was assured by Shirraj Bhadoo that the pronote and receipt will be returned to him but, later on, their relations got strained and Shivraj Bhadoo gave the said pronote and receipt to the plaintiff Ram Narayan. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and besides the issues with regard to recovery of loan money and interest, issue No. 3 was framed whether the plaintiff is not entitled for exclusion of the time spent in the earlier proceedings taken up for the claim under Section 14, Limitation Act and the suit is barred by limitation. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, issue No. 3 with regard to Limitation was wrongly decided. He argued that it was incumbent upon the trial Court that while computing the period of limitation, it was to be seen whether the plaintiff has been prosecuting for the remedy with due diligence in good faith. He contended that despite knowing that the defendant is a teacher the plaintiff -respondent took up proceedings under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 before the Debt Relief Court which rejected the plaintiff s application only on the ground that the application against a non-agriculturist was not maintainable before the Debt Relief Court. Even thereafter, the plaintiff did not file the suit and chose to prefer revision petition against the rejection of his application before the Debt Relief Court. Even thereafter, the plaintiff did not file the suit and chose to prefer revision petition against the rejection of his application before the Debt Relief Court. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court erred in law in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to condonation of delay under Section 14(1), Limitation Act. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon JT 1996 (8) SC 407, Bakhtawar Singh & Anr. vs. Sada Kaur & Anr., AIR 1972 SC 730 , Rabindra Nath Samuel Dawson vs. Sivakami & Ors., AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 185, Jullundur Improvement Trust vs. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1970 Mysore 318, Annu @ Kallappa vs. Sheshu Gundappa, AIR 1961 Rajasthan 162, Ramchandra & Ors. vs. Union of India. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that there is material perversity in the findings recorded by the lower Courts on issues No. 1 and 2. He argued that the evidence produced by the plaintiff suffered from material contradictions and, therefore, it could not be held that the plaintiff succeeded in discharging the burden of proof . He submitted that from the evidence, it was not proved that the plaintiff passed any consideration of Rs. 5000/-to the defendant-petitioner. He further contended that Shivraj was the scriber and the plaintiff proved the pronote by the scriber himself whereas a scriber cannot be witness. He has, therefore, argued that the learned Courts below have committed serious illegality in accepting the evidence of scriber as witness to the pronote. .8. As against the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, stand of the respondent is that the learned Courts below have considered the matter in its entirety and objectivity and there is no error in the impugned Judgment and decree. It is submitted that the plaintiff respondent approached the Debt Relief Court because it was within the knowledge of the respondent that the defendant owned agricultural land on which he gathered harvests for his livelihood and though the defendant is a teacher but that does not detract from the genuineness of his reason to believe so. It is submitted that the plaintiff respondent approached the Debt Relief Court because it was within the knowledge of the respondent that the defendant owned agricultural land on which he gathered harvests for his livelihood and though the defendant is a teacher but that does not detract from the genuineness of his reason to believe so. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that against the order passed by the Court of first instance the respondent preferred revision which was remedy under the law and, therefore the petitioner cannot legitimately contend that the plaintiff was not pursuing the remedy with due diligence. He argued that after considering all these aspects of the matter, the learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to exclusion of the period spent in earlier proceedings. He contended that pronote Exhibit-1 and receipt Exhibit-2 were duly proved by evidence of the witnesses and the defendant-petitioner could not lead any such evidence denying their existence and, therefore, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited Judgment s of the Supreme Court in support of his contentions. In this regard, he has referred to Deena through LRs. vs. Bharat Singh through LRs, 2002 (6) SCC 336 , Arm Group Enterprises Ltd. vs. Waldorf Restaurant & Ors., 2003 (6) SCC 423 . .9. I have carefully gone through the impugned Judgment s and the material on record. 10. Indisputably the witnesses to the pronote Exhibit-1 PW-2 Shivraj and PW-3 Hanuman have proved the document by their evidence and the defendant-petitioner does not deny the execution of the pronote and receipt Exhibit-2. The version of the defendant that he executed the pronote in favour of Shivraj and he did not know Ram Narayan is not proved by evidence on the record and, therefore, the findings of the trial Court as to borrowing of the suit money by defendant Ram Chandra from Ram Narayan is precisely based on the evidence of the parties and perhaps it is one of the reasons why the thrust of arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is more on the question of limitation rather than the merit of the case. In the light of the finding recorded on issue No. 1, the trial Court relied on pronote Exhibit-1 in respect of issue No. 2 as well and since, the amount accrued by way of interest at the agreed rate was found not to have been paid in any manner the trial Court rightly calculated the interest and decreed the suit for a total amount of Rs. 13,400/-. .11. It may be noted that benefit of exclusion of time under Section 14 turns on due diligence and good faith and, therefore, what would deprive one of its benefit can only be in the nature of laches. Considering that the plaintiff throughout proceeded against the defendant claming relief only on pronote Exhibit-1 and receipt Exhibit-2 under bond fide belief that the defendant owned agricultural and was harvesting the same for his livelihood, the proceedings cannot be held to suffer from laches though, of course, there was defect of jurisdiction arising on the assertion of the defendant that he is not an agriculturist and is a teacher by profession. The revision petition filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Debt Relief Court was remedy under the law availed of bond .fide and no sooner did the plaintiff s revision happen to be dismissed he proceeded to file the suit the same day. In these facts and circumstances, laches cannot be imputed to the behaviour of a litigating plaintiff to deprive him of the benefit available under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The learned Courts below have judiciously exercised the discretion and rightly decided the issue. I do not find any jurisdictional illegality or perversity in the finding arrived at by the Courts below. 12. In the result, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.