Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 591 (TS)

Lakumarapu Ravi Kumar v. Gopagani Madhavilatha

2024-08-23

M.G.PRIYADARSINI

body2024
JUDGMENT : M.G. Priyadarsini, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2017 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the defendants preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the plaint are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.28,64,666/- based on three promissory notes, dated 22.10.2016 and 29.10.2016 for Rs.25,00,000/- alleging that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 being wife and husband took advance of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.10.2016 and 29.10.2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. The defendant No.2 stood as surety. The defendants failed to repay the above said amount and also dodged the matter by giving evasive replies, however, defendant No.1 issued cheque bearing No.733805 for Rs.15,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented by the plaintiff in the bank, the said cheque was returned under the caption “stop payment instructions”. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants. Later the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to alienate the properties standing in their name, hence, the plaintiff requested the defendants to discharge the loan amount on 04.06.2017 but the defendants refused the said request. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against defendants. 4. The reply of the defendants to the plaint averments as per their written statement is as under : (a) The plaintiff along with her husband Gopagani Yadhagiri obtained dealership for its products for Warangal District from the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are Managing Director and Director of IPCA software Solutions Private Limited respectively. It is further alleged that the plaintiff offered Rs.10,00,000/- as goodwill and Rs.15,00,000/- towards security for the materials delivered on 11.10.2016. A draft dealership agreement along with material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- valued at dealer price were handed over to the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff and her husband alleged to have promised to sign agreement after consulting their counsel but did not do so and apart from that they failed to sell the products worth of Rs.67,50,000/- supplied to them. A draft dealership agreement along with material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- valued at dealer price were handed over to the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff and her husband alleged to have promised to sign agreement after consulting their counsel but did not do so and apart from that they failed to sell the products worth of Rs.67,50,000/- supplied to them. In view of the family relationship, the defendants agreed to return Rs.15,00,000/- without interest within a period of 15 months on condition that materials handed over to them are to be returned. (b) On the insistence of the plaintiff, the defendants under influence, coercion, threat signed on three blank promissory notes for Rs.15,00,000/-. In the absence of first defendant, the plaintiff and her husband obtained two blank cheques from defendant No.2. (c) The plaintiff and her husband along with one Chakka Haribabu one of the dealers of IPCA software solutions private limited together started harassing defendants and on 06.02.2017 they attacked the defendants at their residence. One Satyam Goud a self-styled mediator also participated in said attack and threatened defendants with dire consequences. They all obtained signatures of defendants and also father of defendant No.2 on pre printed non judicial stamp worth of Rs.100/- besides two blank cheques bearing Nos.711913 and 711914 of SBH, Hyderabad main branch. The defendants tried to book case against the plaintiff and her husband by giving complaint to police but Police helped plaintiff and her husband to close their business at Suryapet. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed as many as six issues. On behalf of plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, the first defendant was examined as DW1, however, no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of appeal. 7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of appeal. 7. The first and foremost contention of the defendants is that the trial Court failed to decide the issues framed in the course of trial on the separate conclusion and failed to appreciate the evidence of the defendants. It is further contended that the trial Court never answered and discussed the issues Nos.1 to 5 separately, which is contrary to law and Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Sathyanath and another v. Sarojamani, 2022 Live Law (SC) 458, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that in a case where the issues of both law and fact arise in the same suit and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of an issue of law only, it may try that suit first, if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. As can be seen from the record, the trial Court has framed the following six issues before proceeding with the trial of the case. 1. Whether the plaintiff entered into dealership proposal agreement with defendants and offered Rs.10 lakhs for goodwill and Rs.15 lakhs as security for materials? 2. Whether the defendants supplied the plaintiff with materials worth Rs.67,50,000/- at dealer price? 3. Whether the defendants agreed to return Rs.15 lakhs subject to return of the materials? 4. Whether the promotes dated 22.10.2016, 29.10.2016 for Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs were executed as collateral security along with cheque dated 11.05.2017 for Rs.15 lakhs? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim? 6. To what result? 8. As can be seen from the above issues, all the issues framed by the trial Court are pertaining to the question of fact, as such, there was no necessity for the trial Court to answer the issues related to question of law first and then try the suit. 6. To what result? 8. As can be seen from the above issues, all the issues framed by the trial Court are pertaining to the question of fact, as such, there was no necessity for the trial Court to answer the issues related to question of law first and then try the suit. Hence, the principle laid down in Sathyanath’s case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. Further, it is very much evident from the pleadings before the trial Court that the defendant alleged to have borrowed Rs.25 lakhs from the plaintiff and whereas the defendants denying the said contention on the pretext that defendants issued promissory notes for the purpose of collateral security against the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff and her husband to the defendants towards dealership. Thus, it is amply evident that though the trial Court has framed as many as six issues, the entire dispute is with regard to one aspect i.e., whether the defendants have borrowed the money from the plaintiff or not. Since all the issues framed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment were pertaining to one cause of action, which was invoked by the plaintiff, the trial Court answered all the issues, which are interconnected with each other, jointly to avoid repetition of facts and avoid unnecessary confusion. There is no bar for the trial Court to discuss all the issues together unless the issues are so fundamentally different from each other. Even otherwise, the High Court for the State of Karnataka in Sri K.C. Paramashivaiah v. Sri T. Narayanaswamy, RSA No.2206 of 2007 decided on 26.09.2012 observed as under : “22. The lower appellate court has observed that the clear finding on issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 have not been recorded. This procedural aspect was highlighted by the appellant. It is true that it has been now laid down that the lower Court must answer all the issue raised in the suit by assigning specific reasons, supporting the conclusions arrived at by the Court, so that such reasoning is amenable for scrutiny by the appellate Court. But, there is no legal prescription that the lower Court cannot answer all the issues together. But, there is no legal prescription that the lower Court cannot answer all the issues together. As long as the lower Court has considered all the materials produced before it and has applied its mind to all the issue raised in the suit, merely on the ground that each of the issues are not separately answered, cannot be a reason to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court.” 10. In view of the principle laid down in the above said decision, it is clear that a judgment and decree passed by the trial Court cannot be set aside merely on the ground that each of the issues are not answered separately. Furthermore, the defendants failed to explain as to what kind of prejudice or injustice that was caused to them when the issues were answered together. 11. As stated supra, as per the contention of the defendants, they have supplied material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to the plaintiff and her husband against the security amount of Rs.15 lakhs deposited by the plaintiff with the defendants. When the plaintiff and her husband failed to sell the material supplied by the defendants, considering the family relationship, the defendants agreed to return Rs.15 lakhs, for which the defendants have issued promissory notes towards security in favour of the plaintiff. But it is to be seen that the security alleged to have been submitted by the plaintiff has to be in conformity with the material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- alleged to have been supplied by the defendant but not Rs.15 lakhs, which is very low when compared to Rs.67,50,000/-. Further, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff along with her husband agreed to proceed with the dealership in respect of the products supplied by the defendants. In such circumstances, the defendants ought to have issued promissory notes in favour of plaintiff as well as her husband. But as can be seen from the record, the promissory notes were issued only in the name of plaintiff but not along with her husband. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances, the above said contention raised by the defendants is appearing to be unbelievable. 12. But as can be seen from the record, the promissory notes were issued only in the name of plaintiff but not along with her husband. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances, the above said contention raised by the defendants is appearing to be unbelievable. 12. The other contention of the defendants is that while deciding issue No.6 the trial Court utterly failed in granting cost of Rs.26,82,333/- which includes interest @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of Exs.A1 to A3 till the date of suit and @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest is awarded @ 6% per annum on principle amount of Rs.25,00,000/- till realisation. As evident from Exs.A1 to A3, though the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum, the trial Court has restricted the claim of interest @ 12% per annum, which was not challenged by the plaintiff. The interest awarded by the trial Court from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree @ 9% per annum and the future interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realisation is appearing to be in proper perspective. Though the defendants contended that there is gross error in awarding interest, there is no clarity as to what is the error committed by the trial Court while awarding interest. 13. It is further contention of the defendants that while granting the relief, the trial Court ought to have seen that the cheque under Ex.A4 is concurrently claimed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contention of the defendants that the trial Court has not considered that the police case was registered against the same event. It is pertinent to note that civil proceedings focus on recovering the amount owed and whereas the criminal proceedings aim to penalize the drawer of the cheque. Thus, the payee/holder of the cheque can file case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the drawer of the cheque and simultaneously can also file a civil case for recovery. Apart from that if the acts of the drawer of the cheque involves any element of cheating or dishonest intention, then the payee/holder of the cheque can take appropriate measures under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Apart from that if the acts of the drawer of the cheque involves any element of cheating or dishonest intention, then the payee/holder of the cheque can take appropriate measures under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. In Golden Menthol Export Private Limited v. Sheba Wheels (P) Limited, 2007 (2) GLT 47 the Guwahati High Court held that the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be taken as an alternative to civil suit for the realisation of money on dishonour of cheque. Further, the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will never absolve the drawer of the cheque from civil liability. 14. It is further contention of the defendants that the trial Court failed to see that the transactions between both the parties to the suit was a business of a company named IPCA Software Solutions Private Limited, which was not made a party to the suit. Further, the trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff along with her husband alleged to have entered into a dealership agreement with the defendants and got received material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- valued at dealer price and plaintiff failed to sell the material, which was supplied by the defendants. It is to be seen that though the defendants are alleging that plaintiff entered into a dealership agreement with them in respect of material worth of Rs.67,50,000/-, no palpable evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants. Except the oral evidence, which is not supported by the evidence of any other eyewitness, no documentary evidence is adduced by the defendants to establish any of their contentions. On one hand, the defendants are contending that they have supplied material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to the plaintiff and her husband and on the other hand they are contending that the dealership agreement under which they supplied material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to the plaintiff and her husband, has not yet been signed either by the plaintiff or her husband. No man of ordinary prudence will hand over material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to others without obtaining any security much less without obtaining signatures on the dealership agreement. 15. In the cross examination, DW1 gone to the extent of deposing that he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff but he knew her husband but he again says that plaintiff is his relative. 15. In the cross examination, DW1 gone to the extent of deposing that he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff but he knew her husband but he again says that plaintiff is his relative. DW1 admitted that as per the written statement they took advance of Rs.15 lakhs from the plaintiff and agreed to return the amount without any interest within 15 months. In the cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the defendant suggested few questions with regard to the financial capacity of the plaintiff. On one hand, the defendant contends that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount and on the other hand, contends that he received Rs.15 lakhs from the plaintiffs with a promise to return the amount without any interest within 15 months. These admissions and contradictions made by DW1 raise any amount of suspicion on his conduct. 16. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 806 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that non disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. However, there is no clarity as to what were the relevant and material documents that were not disclosed by the plaintiff. 17. Learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College and others, (1987) 2 SCC 555 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It was further observed that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. As can be seen from the record, in the present case, there is no such instance of submission of evidence by the plaintiff before the trial Court without pleadings. 18. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. As can be seen from the record, in the present case, there is no such instance of submission of evidence by the plaintiff before the trial Court without pleadings. 18. Though the defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff on various grounds, except the oral evidence of DW1, no documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants either to establish that plaintiff entered into dealership agreement with the defendants or to prove that they have not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. On the other hand, on behalf of the plaintiff, not only the plaintiff was examined as PW1 but also the attestors of the promissory notes were examined as PWs 2 and 3. Though PWs 1 to 3 were extensively cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants, nothing was elicited from their cross examination, to discard their testimony. The defendants have not denied their signatures on cheque or promissory notes. Though the defendants have pleaded that the plaintiff obtained their signatures on promissory notes under coercion, threat and influence, they could not bring to the notice of this Court as to what were the circumstances, which prompted the plaintiff to obtain the signatures of the defendants on promissory notes under coercion, threat and influence. Further, the defendants have not placed any material to establish that they have taken any steps to lodge any complaint before the Police in respect of allegations of coercion, threat and undue influence against the plaintiff. The defendants, who are the appellants herein, have failed to substantiate any of the grounds raised by them to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court do not find any merits in the appeal to set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree and in fact, the trial Court has elaborately discussed all the aspects and arrived to an appropriate conclusion. 20. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.