Telangana High Court
Nandamuri Venkat Jagannadha Kumar, vs B.V.Ranga Rao on 17 August, 2020
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.848 of 2020
ORDER:
This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.27-02-2020 in I.A.No.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.207 of 2012 of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. Petitioner herein is defendant in the said suit.
3. The respondent had filed the said suit against petitioner for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note.
4. Written statement was filed by petitioner opposing the suit claim.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 30-12-2014 the following issues were framed by the trial court:
"1. Whether the pronote dt.07-12-2009 is true valid and binding?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim amount?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest as claimed?
4. To what relief?"
Plea of petitioner in I.A.No.273 of 2020
5. After the trial concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.273 of 2020 in the Court below invoking Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. on 03-02-2020 requesting the Court below to amend/reframe the issues already framed in the following manner:
::2:: MSR,J & TA,J
crp_848_2020
" 1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.07-12-2009 is a forged one?
2. Whether this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the place of execution is disputed?
3. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender within the meaning of the Section 2(7) of the A.P. (Telangana area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli?
4. Whether the plaintiff has capacity to lend the money allegedly referred on promissory note dt.07-12-2009?"
6. The petitioner wanted the new issues/existing issues to be amended on the ground that:
(i) a licence under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli was necessary for the respondent to do business in money lending in Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad;
(b) according to the petitioner, the promissory note in question was not executed at Secunderabad; and
(c) the petitioner was also questioning the capacity of the respondent to lend money under the suit promissory note dt.07-12-2009.
The pleas of the respondent in the counter affidavit in IA.NO.273 of 2020
7. The respondent also filed a counter with counter-claim pointing out that the application lacks bona fides; that it was filed as an after thought to over come the omissions and lacuna in the evidence of the petitioner, that the petitioner has completed his arguments in the suit 3 months prior to the filing of the I.A. and had not raised any objections to the issues originally framed by the Court or asked for framing of additional issues. It is also contended that some of the issues which ::3:: MSR,J & TA,J crp_848_2020 are now sought to be framed by the petitioner are already covered in the existing issues and others are against the provision of Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. and Order VIII C.P.C. It is also stated that the arguments of the respondent/plaintiff is also completed and at this stage there is no necessity to frame the issues sought for by the petitioner.
8. It is also pointed that the issue whether the plaintiff is a money lender within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli is contradictory to other issue i.e. whether the plaintiff had capacity to lend money referred to in the promissory note dt.07-12-2009, and in fact there was no plea raised in the written statement that respondent/plaintiff is the money lender.
9. A counter-claim was made in I.A.No.273 of 2020 by the respondent/plaintiff seeking framing of two additional issues:
" (1) Whether the defences of the defendant relative to decide the present suit? If yes, what are the defences to be considered as relevant to decide the present suit?
(2) What is the effect of interrogatories and its evidentiary value held between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/ plaintiff?"
The order of the trial court
10. By order dt.27-02-2020, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.273 of 2020 and the counter-claim raised there in by respondent/plaintiff.
11. It observed that the first issue which the petitioner wanted to be framed i.e. whether the promissory note dt.07-12-2009 is forged one, ::4:: MSR,J & TA,J crp_848_2020 is covered by the first issue already framed by the Court i.e. whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding, and there is no necessity to recast the first issue already framed by the Court.
12. It also observed that the second issue sought by the petitioner was whether the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the place of execution was disputed, and this issue is covered by the second issue already framed in the suit i.e. whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim amount, as the issue relating to jurisdiction, limitation and other aspects of law would have to be considered while deciding the said issue.
13. It also observed that the issue relating to the respondent being a money lender and the issue whether he had capacity to lend money covered by the suit promissory note were introduced for the first time in evidence, and that it is entitled to frame any additional issues on its own if it deems fit during the adjudication of the case, and no separate issues other than the one already framed in the suit are necessary.
14. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. The plea of the petitioner in this Revision
15. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the Court below can frame a new issue or reframe the issue at any point of time before the suit is decided; and the reasoning given by the Court below for refusing to recast the issues already framed, is contrary to law, and cannot be accepted. He also contended that no fresh evidence would be necessary even if the issues were recast, and in the event the ::5:: MSR,J & TA,J crp_848_2020 petitioner were to lose the suit, the petitioner would have difficulty in any appeal which the petitioner were to file, and the issues as sought by the petitioner in I.A.No.273 of 2020 were not framed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, interest of justice would require to reframe the issues already framed in the manner suggested by the petitioner so that the issues in controversy are highlighted. The consideration by the Court
16. I have noted the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner.
17. The suit for recovery of money filed by respondent in 2012 is at the stage of arguments.
18. The respondent/plaintiff had submitted his arguments on 30-01-2020 and it was posted for submission of arguments by the counsel for petitioner. It is at that stage this application seeking recasting of issues has been filed.
19. It is important to note that at the time when the issues were famed initially by the Court below on 30-12-2014, the pleas of the petitioner that he did not execute the suit promissory note and that the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, were taken in the written statement by the petitioner and were taken into account by the Court below.
20. Almost for 5 years thereafter, while trial went on, the petitioner had no grievance about the issues it had framed.
::6:: MSR,J & TA,J
crp_848_2020
21. Only after the respondent/plaintiff completed his arguments on 30-01-2020 did the petitioner suddenly claim to realize that the issues were framed defectively on 30-12-2014.
22. I do not appreciate this conduct on the part of the petitioner in not raising the alleged defect in the framing of the issues till the arguments of the petitioner were heard and then waking up to assert his rights.
23. The Court below has given cogent reasons for not allowing I.A.No.273 of 2020 and amending the issues already framed by it, which cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
24. Therefore the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
25. However, the petitioner is at liberty to advance all the contentions available to the petitioner both on fact and in law in the Court below, and the Court below shall decide the suit in accordance with law. No costs.
26. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date: 17-08-2020 Vsv