IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 1620 of 2003(I) ----------------------- AS.182/1998 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.3/1992 of PRL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- PEOPLE'S KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HORMESE. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. MARYKUTTY, W/O. MUNDANMANI DEVASSYKUTTY, THUMBAKODE, PARIYARAM, THRISSUR DIST. 2. M/S. GEO BANKERS, ELINJIPARA, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.K. LONAPPAN, KIZHAKKUDAN HOUSE PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ FOR R1 ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON 08/09/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No. 1620 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the ...th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 3 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are defendants 1 and 2 in that suit, which was filed for money based on kuri agreement. 2. The petitioner filed the suit for a decree for money based on a kuri agreement executed by the first respondent and secured by three promissory notes executed by the second respondent, the second respondent being engaged in the business of money lending. The promissory notes were endorsed in favour of the petitioner and the second respondent undertook not to release the amounts due thereunder without the concurrence of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was a trustee for that amount, which C.R.P.No. 1620 of 2003 2 was meant as a deposit. A notice demanding payment of the amount was not honoured. Hence the petitioner filed the suit for a decree for Rs.21,540/-, being the amount towards 16 instalments, and interest thereon. 3. The first respondent contended that the petitioner had procured the deposit with the assurance that the kuri instalments will be paid off with interest payable thereon and that the amount will be returned to her on termination of the kuri. The deposits had become time barred. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to file the suit. 4. The second respondent contended that there was neither any deposit nor any pledge of the same. The suit was barred by limitation. 5. In the trial court, Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked. PW1 and DW1 were examined. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on the finding that the promissory notes were barred because of the inaction of the petitioner. Against that judgment and decree, the C.R.P.No. 1620 of 2003 3 plaintiff filed an appeal, A.S.No. 182 of 1998 before the District Court, Trichur. The District Court, as per judgment dt. 26.3.2002, allowed that appeal in part and the suit was decreed in part, allowing the plaintiff to realise the balance of plaint amount of Rs.21,540/- after adjusting Rs.12,500/- together with 9% interest since 20.11.1984 till the date of the suit towards it, together with interest at the rate of 6% since the date of the suit till date of realisation and proportionate cost throughout from the first defendant and her assets. Against that judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed this revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the courts below acted with material irregularity and in the wrong exercise of jurisdiction by not decreeing the suit in full. Ext.A1 is the kuri agreement dt. 20.11.1984 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff company agreeing to pay future C.R.P.No. 1620 of 2003 4 instalments, amounting to Rs.29,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per instalment. Ext.A2 is the Promissory Note No.240 dt.20.11.1984 issued by the second defendant in favour of Subhish Devassy, son of the first defendant, for Rs.4,500/-, which was endorsed by him in favour of the plaintiff. Ext.A3 is the Promissory Note No.239 dt.20.11.1984 issued by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant for Rs.4,000/-, which is also endorsed by her in favour of the plaintiff. Ext.A4 is the Promissory Note No. 239 dt.20.11.1984 in the name of the husband of the first defendant executed by the second defendant for Rs.4,000/-, which was endorsed by the husband of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 8. The agreed interest mentioned in Exts.A2 to A4 is 9% p.a. As per Ext.A1 kuri agreement, the first defendant pledged Exts.A2 to A4 Promissory Notes for a total amount of Rs.12,500/- as security for the future instalments. In Ext.A1, the first defendant has agreed that in case of default of payment of instalments, such payments may be made good from Exts.A2 to A4 Promissory C.R.P.No. 1620 of 2003 5 Notes. As observed by the learned District Judge, the plaintiff could have collected an amount of Rs.12,500/- covered by Exts.A2 to A4 together with interest before the same became barred by limitation. Therefore, the learned District Judge found that the amount covered by Exts.A2 to A4 together with 9% interest has to be adjusted towards the plaint amount and the plaintiff is entitled to get the balance amount. On considering the facts and evidence on record, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the judgment of the District Court. 9. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed, as it is without any merit. The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this revision petition. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm