MALGIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA Vs. THIPPANA NARSI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29-10-2009 passed in I.A. No. 164 of 2009 in O.S. No. 561 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 8, Rule 9 r/w. Section 151, CPC.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S. No. 561 of 2006. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 95,000/- basing on a promissory note dated 19-12-2003 executed by the defendant for Rs. 50,000/- promising to repay the same with interest at Rs. 2.50 ps. per month per one hundred rupees. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed the amount for his family necessities on 19-12-2003 and executed the demand promissory note on even date promising to repay the same with interest at Rs. 2.50 ps. per month per one hundred rupees. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 95,000/- with interest thereon at the contract rate of borrowing. The defendant filed written statement admitting of his borrowing Rs. 50,000/- on 19-12-2003 and execution of the promissory note on the even date. He pleaded that the amount due under the promissory note dated 19-12-2003 and five other promissory notes has been discharged by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the residential house bearing Door No. 1-33. It is his further plea that the disputes between him and the plaintiff came to be placed before the elders namely Vanepally Pandu Ranga Rao, K. Ashok Kumar and M. Venkat Reddy and as per the advice of the elders, he offered his residential house bearing Door No. 1-33 towards total discharge of the amount due under various promissory notes and accordingly, he executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession. The elders handed over six promissory notes including the promissory note dated 19-12-2003 to him. The promissory note basing on which the suit is filed is a fabricated one.

(3.) Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 164 of 2009 under Order 8, Rule 9 r/w. Section 151, CPC seeking permission of the Court to file additional pleadings in the form of a rejoinder for effective disposal of the matter. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the additional pleadings became eminent because of the plea taken by the defendant with regard to execution of the sale deed in respect of the residential house bearing Door No. 1-33 towards total discharge of the amounts due under various promissory notes. The defendant filed counter resisting the application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action, by order dated 29-10-2009. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/plaintiff.