IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.42 OF 2006 Date:01-03-2011 Between:- M/s. Sri Ramana Finance Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Partner Vaitla Visweswara Rao ..Appellant/Plaintiff And Devala Prasadakumar .. Respondent/Defendant JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.10.2005, in O.S.No.201 of 2003 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. Heard. 3. The case of plaintiff is that defendant borrowed Rs.80,000/- for the purpose of development of his property on 17.03.1983 and executed a promissory note agreeing to pay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendant deposited the title deeds with plaintiff with an intention to create equitable mortgage. The defendant also borrowed a further sum of Rs.15,000/- on 04.08.1998 and executed a promissory note agreeing to pay the same with interest at 27% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff firm opened a katha in the name of defendant. The katha shows the various payments made by defendant. As the defendant refused to pay the amount due, the suit is filed. 4. The defendant filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that the suit was filed with an intention to harass the defendant, his father, brother and other family members in view of the existing legal disputes between the elder brother of the defendant with the plaintiff. By 17.03.1986, the defendant was a student and he had no necessity to borrow any amount from anyone. Execution of the promissory note, oral agreement and the letter are vague and fabricated. The elder brother of the defendant and his father were deceived by the plaintiff. The elder brother of the defendant was implicated in a criminal case filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed O.S.No.22 of 2003 for recovery of a loan alleged to have been lent to the brother of the defendant and the same is pending. The plaintiff obtained two registered sale agreements from the defendant’s brother. The suit is filed based on forged and fabricated documents and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered firm and the plaintiff is the Managing Partner of the firm and he is competent to file the suit? 2. Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- by agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 24% P.A. with yearly compound interest and he deposited his title deeds with the plaintiff – firm? 3. Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff firm on 4.08.1994 by agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 27% per annum with yearly compound interest? 4. Whether the defendant created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds with regard to the amount borrowed on 4.08.1994? 5. Whether the defendant created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds with regard to the amount borrowed on 4.08.1994? 6. Whether on 24.04.2002 the defendant executed a letter in his own hand writing by agreeing to pay the amount due to the plaintiff firm? 7. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit basing on fabricated and forged documents? 8. To what relief? 6. As seen from the above issues, each issue is a separate and distinct one. Without adverting to consider or adjudicate on each issue, the trial Court has taken up all the issues 1 to 7 together and came to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount. 7. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XIV C.P.C. recognizes a normal rule and enacts that the issues arising in a suit should ordinarily be tried together and a judgment should be pronounced on those issues. 8. In view of the fact that each issue is entirely different and distinct, the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence on record and answered each issue separately. That has not been done. So, it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded to the trial Court to consider each issue separately with reference to the evidence adduced by both the parties and adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 21.10.2005, in O.S.No.201 of 2003 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and remanding the matter to the trial Court to consider each issue separately with reference to the evidence adduced by both the parties and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 1st March, 2011 AMD/KSP THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.42 OF 2006 Date:01-03-2011 AMD/KSP