IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 94 OF 2003 BETWEEN: A.Subhas …APPELLANT AND T.Vijay Shankar. …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 94 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No. 514 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest on the basis of three promissory notes said to have been executed by the defendant. 2. The allegation in the plaint goes to show that the plaintiff and defendant have got acquaintance and the defendant is working in B.H.E.L., and also doing finance business. The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each on 19-11-1999, 20-11-1999 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 22-11-1999 and executed three promissory notes. The defendant in spite of repeated demands did not pay the money. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he has been giving amounts to the needy friends and money was being deposited with him. The plaintiff deposited with this defendant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the 1st week of January, 1996 and obtained promissory notes for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively without filling the dates at the instance of the plaintiff and on his representation that the same will facilitate to take refund of one or more of the amounts covered by promissory notes as and when required. In the first week of June, 2000, the plaintiff and some others demanded the payment of money without producing the promissory notes and as there was a threat, the defendant filed O.S.No. 923 of 2000 and obtained order of injunction. On knowing about the order, the plaintiff showed the promissory notes and the defendant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 15-07-2000 and still a sum of Rs.15,000/- was due and the plaintiff agreed to return the promissory notes on payment of interest. On 01-09-2000 when the defendant went to the plaintiff to pay the interest and take back the promissory notes, the plaintiff avoided to receive and demanded payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is a material alteration in the promissory notes and they were not enforceable. The dates were filled by the plaintiff un-authorisedly. Therefore, there is no liability to pay the amount. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial: 1) Whether plaintiff obtained suit promissory notes in January, 1996 without mentioning the dates ? 2) Whether the defendant paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 15-07-2000? 3) Whether the defendant is liable to pay only Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff towards interest? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with costs and subsequent interest as prayed for by him? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-19. On behalf of the defendant, DWs-1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-12. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 8. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the suit promissory notes are enforceable? 2) Whether the defendant has discharged the amounts? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest at 18% per annum? 4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? 9. POINTS: There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and according to the case of the plaintiff, the said sum was paid in the year, 1999 and the promissory notes Exs.A-1 to A-3 were executed, whereas according to the case of the defendant, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- were deposited in 1996 and some blank promissory notes were taken with his signatures and subsequently, he has discharged the debt and the plaintiff taking advantage of the blank promissory notes, filled the particulars and filed the suit. Therefore, there is no liability to pay the amount. 10. In the context of the plea taken by the defendant, it has to be seen whether his claim of execution of the blank promissory notes in 1996 is probable and proved. Evidently, the defendant is an employee in B.H.E.L., and he is said to be dealing with lending of money and in such circumstances, no prudent man would have given three promissory notes with blanks and failed to take return of them if the amount was already paid. According to the case of the defendant, he has discharged the amount on 15-07-2000 after he filed the suit O.S.No. 923 of 2000 and obtained the injunction order. The evidence of the defendant and the written statement is absolutely silent about the month or the date when the said deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- were made and when the promissory notes Exs.A-1 to A-3 were taken without filling the blanks. If really the said transaction has taken place in the year, 1996, the defendant, who is well-versed with the lending of money, would not have paid the money after a period of three years. It is also to be noted having filed a suit and having obtained an order of injunction would not have paid money on 15-07-2000 without taking a receipt or without making an endorsement on the promissory notes Exs.A-1 to A-3 when they were evidently brought to him by the plaintiff. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant is very suspicious and his plea appears to be baseless. When a person has filed a suit for injunction with regard to monetary transaction and when that amount was paid subsequent to the order of injunction, this fact would have been informed to the Court and the defendant would have certainly insisted for a receipt at least, if not, the return of the promissory notes, even if any further sum is due. When the promissory notes were brought to the defendant, he would have definitely sought for an endorsement of payment. Therefore, in view of his conduct, which is not reasonable and natural, the plea of the defendant cannot be accepted. The trial Court has rightly rejected the plea of the execution of the promissory notes in the year, 1996 with blanks, so also the discharge pleaded by the defendant is also rightly rejected since without receipt or endorsement, he would not have paid, particularly after the order of injunction obtained by him. These are un- natural conducts, which disprove the claim of the defendant about the circumstances under which the promissory notes have come into existence. 11. Even otherwise assuming for a moment that blank promissory notes were given by the defendant if not in 1996, subsequently, the question is whether these promissory notes are not enforceable. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in Jayantilal Goel Vs. Smt. Zubeda Khanum[1], where-under the Court considered the question of material alteration with reference to Section 87 of Negotiable Instruments Act and came to the conclusion that even insertion of a new writing in the promissory note clearly attracts material alteration. 12. In fact, as can be seen from the plea of the defendant and the evidence, the defendant has handed over the blank promissory notes willingly to the plaintiff and authorises him to fill the blanks. In this connection, it is useful to refer the Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. “20. Inchoate stamped instruments. Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument any thing in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder”. 13. In the decision reported in Duggineni Seshagiri Rao Vs. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao[2], where, same facts were considered and it was held under Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the document is a valid document and the filling of the particulars will not vitiate the document. It is a Division Bench decision, which referred to several other judgments on the aspect. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench, the decision of the Single Judge relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no relevancy. Therefore, it is quite clear that the promissory notes were signed by the defendant and handed over to the plaintiff authorising him to filling up the blanks, it cannot be said that it is materially altered and not enforceable. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is mis-joinder of cause of action since the suit was filed on the basis of three separate promissory notes. The above contention is not valid in view of the fact under Order.2, Rule.3 of Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”), the plaintiff can institute a suit against the same defendant on different causes of action. Therefore, in view of the specific provision, the suit cannot be said to be bad. 15. So far as the passing of the consideration under Exs.A-1 to A-3 are concerned, if the theory of the defendant that the money was paid in 1996 is to be disbelieved, then there is evidence of plaintiff, who is the holder of the promissory notes, and when the passing of consideration need not be doubted, the defendant cannot escape the liability. The plea of the appellant that the daughter of the plaintiff is said to have filled the columns and she was not examined is not very much material. 16. Therefore, with all the above reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the promissory notes Exs.A-1 to A-3 are valid and there is no material alteration and the plea of the defendant about the discharge is not probable and believable and the lower Court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Court has granted interest at 18% per annum continuously from the date of suit till the date of realisation causes much hardship. Plaintiff placed the reliance under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where it mandates payment of 18% interest in the absence of any agreement to pay the interest. Evidently, in this case no interest was claimed prior to the suit. The question before the Court is in spite of the provisions under Sections 79 or 80 of the CPC, whether the Court has got jurisdiction to reduce the interest. In this connection, it is useful to refer the decision reported in Union Bank of India Vs. P.Krishnaiah and another[3], wherein it was held that it is only the provisions of Section 34 of CPC that governs the discretion of the Court and Section 79 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which entitle the payment of interest at contract rate is not a bar under Section 34 of CPC. To same effect, the decision reported in Polavarapu Nagamani and others Vs. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others[4]. 18. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel granting of interest at 18% per annum is not reasonable taking into consideration the nature of the transaction between the parties and I feel the ends of justice would meet if granting of interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Each party should bear their own costs. Date: 09-02-2011. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J INL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 94 OF 2003 9th February, 2011 INL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN APPEAL SUIT No. 94 OF 2003 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4788 OF 2010 [1] AIR 1986 ANDHRA PRADESH 120 [2] 2001(3) L.S. 239 [3] AIR 1989 ANDHRA PRADESH 211 [4] 2010(6) ALT 92 (D.B.)