IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 AS.No. 172 of 1998(C) --------------------- OS.161/1994 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: DEFENDANT ------------------------------------- K.X.JOHN, ROSE HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, ELOOR VILAGE, NOW RESIDING AT NOW WORKING AT M/S TESLA HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. REGD. OFFICE XIII/43, CONVENT ROAD UNIVERSITY P.O, S.KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------- D.SANKARAN NAIR 'SANTHINI' MANJUMMEL ROAD UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR ADV. SRI.P.B.ASOKAN SRI.GEO PAUL THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- A.S.No.172 of 1998 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S No. 161/1994 on the file of the Sub court, North Paravur is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 29,950/- with interest. The suit was decreed. Hence the appeal. The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant borrowed Rs. 29,950/- and executed a pronote on 15.3.1991. The defendant also agreed to pay 18% interest. Since the amount was not paid on demand, the suit was filed for recovery of the said amount with 18% interest. 3. The defendant denied the execution of the pronote. It is interalia contended that the promissory note was executed by FEDO Employees Co-operative Society and not in the independent capacity of the defendant that since the society is not made as a party to the suit, hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. The trial court examined all the contentions raised by the defendant. Ext.A1 pronote is dated 15.3.1991. 14.3.1994 is the last date for filing the suit. Since 14.3.1994 happened to be a public holiday the suit was filed on 15.3.1994. Therefore the contention of the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation has no legal support. The other contentions are also elaborately considered by the trial court. The wife and son of the A.S.No.172 of 1998 -2- defendant are the witnesses to Ext.A1 pronote and the trial court examined them as PW2 and PW3 and the plaintiff as PW1. The oral evidence tendered by the parties was correctly appreciated by the trial court. Relying on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to4, the trial court held that Ext.A1 pronote is executed by the defendant. The other contentions are also rightly considered by the trial court on the basis of evidence and found that there is no merit. In the said circumstances this Court is of the view that the decree passed by the trial court suffers from no legal infirmity and the contentions does not merit consideration In the result, the appeal stands dismissed The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is confirmed. No order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- A.S.No.172 of 1998 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 14th December, 2009