THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4296 of 2008 Date: 13-8-2010 Between Surampalli Mohana Rao … Petitioner/Plaintiff and Jukutla Srinivasa Rao … Respondent/Defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4296 of 2008 Oral Order: Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-7-2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district in dismissing the suit S.C.No.10 of 2007 filed under Section 26 and Order IV, Rule 1 of CPC seeking to pass a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with costs and subsequent interest. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit before the trial Court. The suit was filed basing on a promissory note dated 03-5-2004 for a sum of Rs.7,800/-. In the written statement, the defendant denied the material allegations. 4. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also P.Ws.2 and 3, and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. 5. Basing on the material available on record including the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court observed that no doubt, the plaintiff established the execution of the suit promissory note by examining P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestor and scribe, respectively. But, it is pointed out that the plaintiff got marked the office copy of legal notice got issued by him to the defendant as Ex.A-2. In the said notice, it was mentioned that even after several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 09-12-2004 and he was in due of only Rs.4,800/-. 6. If that is the documentary evidence on record furnished by the plaintiff himself, it cannot be believed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.7,800/- and the entire amount was due to the plaintiff. 7. It was further pointed out in the impugned judgment as to how the plaintiff claim the suit amount as Rs.7,800/- towards principal and Rs.2,200/- towards interest i.e., a total sum of Rs.10,000/-. 8. Another intriguing aspect that was noticed by the trial Court was that the part payment was not endorsed on the suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A-1. 9. In the said circumstances, the trial Court did not believe the version of the plaintiff that the defendant did not choose to pay the said amount despite several demands. 10. Furthermore, the trial Court had arrived at the conclusion that by the recitals of Ex.A-2 office copy of legal notice got issued by him to the defendant, the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts. In view of the matter, the suit was dismissed. 11. I have carefully gone through the judgment and the reasons assigned by the trial Court are absolutely rationale and on proper lines. 12. For the foregoing, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. 13. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment under revision. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4296 of 2008 13th August, 2010. (Ak)