THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.1238 of 2006 Date: 30.9.2010 Between: Banavata Lokya. ………..Appellant And Banoth Balu. ………..Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.1238 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2005 passed in O.S.No.35 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government at Khammam. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein filed the suit under A.P.Agency Rules, for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- from the defendant with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization and costs. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant for his business necessities, borrowed an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- on 04.04.2000 and executed a pro-note in favour of the plaintiff on the same date agreeing to pay interest @ 24% per annum and that despite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the amount. The further case of the plaintiff that he got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 13.3.2003 and as there was no response from the defendant, he filed the suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed suit pro-note, copy of the legal notice dated 13.3.2003 and postal acknowledgment from the defendant, dated 19.3.2003. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement inter alia denying the averments made by the plaintiff that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiff on 04.04.2000 and also denied the execution of the pro-note. It is also the case of the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit is hit by Section 1 of the A.P (Scheduled Areas) Money-Lenders Regulation (1) of 1960, since the suit pro-note is not attested by any Village Officer or Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat as required under Section 4 (a) of the A.P (Scheduled Areas) Money-Lenders Regulation. It is also his case that the plaintiff is a professional money lender and doing money lending business without money lending licence contravening the Regulation (1) of 1960 and that the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant has also referred to the suits filed by the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.35/2003, 36/2003, 41/2003, 55/2003, 60/2003 on the file of the Agent to Government at Khammam. It is also the case of the defendant that he is a poor Fair Price Shop dealer and that due to village fractions and misunderstandings, a false suit is filed against him. The lower Court observing that both the parties to the suit called absent considering the documents filed by them decreed the suit. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.H.V.R.R Swamy is that according to Rule 26 of the A.P. Agency Rules, where neither party appears when the suit is called for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed and that the judgment of the lower Court is violating the said rule. As seen from the record, the petitioner has been permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent. The petitioner filed proof of service along with the postal acknowledgment, which shows that the respondent has received the notice. In spite of receiving the notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The point for consideration is whether the Lower Authority violated the Rule 26 of the A.P Agency Rules? For the trial and determination of the suits in the agency areas, the Government of A.P have designated the concerned Collectors and District Magistrates of West Godavari, East Godavari, Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam, Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam and Mahaboobnagar as agents to the State Government and they are vested the same powers as vested in the District Courts. The concerned Sub-Collectors are vested with the powers of subordinate courts. Under Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, Agency Munsifs are empowered to take cognizance of suits for movable and immovable property not exceeding in value of Rs.500/-. Under Rule 7 of the Rules, suits of a value exceeding Rs.5,000/- shall be instituted in the Court of Agent of State Government. Other suits have to be instituted in the Court of Agency Divisional Officer having jurisdiction under Rule 5 of the A.P. Agency Rules. The above procedure under Rule 15 (g) is applicable where the parties adduce the evidence at once and advance the arguments on the same day. Rule 14 deals with the institution of suits and appeals. Rule 15 (a) envisages that the parties or their pleaders may present at or before the first hearing written statements of their respective cases to the Court, but no written statement shall be received after the first hearing of the suit unless permitted by the Court. Rule 15 (g) of the Rules as follows: “When at the first hearing of the suit it appears that the parties are at issue on some question of law or fact, if the Court shall be satisfied that no further argument or evidence than that which the parties or their pleaders can at once supply is required upon any such of the issues of law or facts as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit, the Court, after hearing such argument and evidence, may proceed to determine such issue or issues and if the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision of the suit, may pronounce the judgment accordingly; otherwise, the Court shall postpone the further hearing of the suit and shall fix a day for the production of such further evidence or such further argument as the case may require; provided that if either party shall fail at the first or any adjourned hearing without sufficient cause to produce the evidence on which he relies, the Court may at once give judgment.” Rule 16 envisages that the Rules prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for examination of witnesses in appealable cases shall apply to all trials of original suits and proceedings of civil nature held before the Agency Courts. Rule 26 (1) & (2) of the Rules, which reads as follows: “(1) Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed. (2) Where a suit is dismissed for non-appearance, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit, or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.” A reading of the above rules makes it clear that unless the Agent comes to a conclusion that no further argument or evidence than that which the parties or their pleaders can at once supply is required upon any such of the issues of law or facts as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit, the Court, after hearing such argument and evidence, may proceed to determine such issue or issues and if the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision of the suit, may pronounce the judgment accordingly; otherwise, the Court shall postpone the further hearing of the suit and shall fix a day for the production of such further evidence or for such further argument as the case may require. Admittedly, the parties were absent so the Court had no occasion to follow the procedure as required even under Rule 15 (g). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the lower authority ought to have followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 26 (1) of the Rules. Thus it is clear that the judgment passed by the lower Court is contrary to the Rule 26 (1) of the A.P. Agency Rules. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the lower Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Agent to the Government for fresh disposal by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date: 30-09-2010 mrb