YARLAGADDA VEERAIAH Vs. KAWALI MINING CORPORATION
LAWS(APH)-1972-1-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 21,1972

YARLAGADDA VEERAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
KAWALI MINING CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against common order by the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, in Interlocutory Applications Nos. 26 and 29 of 1970 in O. S. Nos. 5 and 10 of 1970. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions give rise to common question of law, they are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The material facts leading to the filing of these Civil Revision Petitions may briefly stated. Defendant No. 12 as the Managing Partner of the Defendant No. 1, executed two promissory notes one in favour of Yarlagadda Baliah and the other in favour of Indlamudi Veeriah, Four one anna denomination stamps were affixed on each of those promissory notes instead of 0.25 paise stamps as required by law. Since the promissors did not pay the moneys due by them, the promisee Yarlagadda Baliah and Indlamudi Veeriah, filed suits for the recovery of moneys due to them under those promissory notes. Those original suits were re-numbered as O. S. No. 5 of 1970 and No. 10 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala. In their respective written statements the defendants inter alia raised an objection that the suit promissory notes were not duly stamped according to law and hence, on that account inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. In O. S. No. 5 of 1970 the aforesaid objection raised by the defendants was overruled by the Subordinate Judge, who, by his order dated 17-12-1963, held that the suit promissory note was duly stamped and was admissible in evidence. The defendants carried the matter in revision to this court in C. R. P. No. 613 of 1964. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said Revision petition holding that the suit promissory note was not duly stamped and was, consequently, inadmissible in evidence. The question whether the suit could be considered on the cause of action as stated in the plaint, or the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint so as to fall back on the original cause of action, was left open to be decided by the trial Court.
(3.) In these circumstances, in both the Original Suit No. 5 of 1970 and O. S. No. 10 of 1970, the plaintiffs filed I. A. Nos. 26 and 29 of 1970 respectively for amendment of their plaints, so as to fall back on the original causes of action. The Subordinate Judge, Chirala, by his common order dated 13-1-1970 dismissed both the I. As. With costs, against which the present Civil Revision petitions are filed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.