IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 464 of 1997(E) --------------------- AS.133/1992 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.330/1989 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------- PADMAVATHI KURUPATHY AMMA, AGED 57 UYEARS, D/O.CHEERU KURUPATHY AMMA, RESIDING AT VALLIKKATHU MEETHAL, CHERUPPA AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------- T.V. JOSE KUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.THOLATH KUNHU VAREED, RESIDING AT 37/1207 A, KARTHIKA, VENGERI AMSOM, KURUVASSERY DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH FOR R THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------ S.A.NO.464 OF 1997 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.330/89 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs.15,000/- with 18% interest. The suit was decreed by the trial court, confirmed in appeal. The parties hereinafter referred to are the plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. The defendant admitted the execution of promissory note for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the joint statement in O.S.No.28/86. In Ext.A2 it is stated that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.15,000/-. On that basis a promissory note was executed. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove his contention. The courts below relied on Exts.A1 and A2. The admission of liability was also taken note of. The contentions of the defendant were rejected. -2- S.A.464/1997 The defendant also contended that he had paid Rs.12,000/- on 13/4/1989. The said contention was found against the defendant. On the basis of Exts.A1 and A2 the plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount from the defendant. 3. The very same contentions were raised by the appellant before this Court. It is also submitted that on the previous day of the date of pronouncement of the judgment, the appellant filed an application for reopening the evidence. That application was rejected and he did not get sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and therefore the case may be remanded for fresh consideration. 4. In the light of the facts, respective contentions and evidence on record, I do not find that this is a fit case for reconsideration by the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was decreed with 18% interest. According to him, the rate of interest is unjust and excessive. Taking into consideration the submission, this Court is of the -3- S.A.464/1997 view that the interest rate can be modified. Accordingly, the rate of interest is modified fixing the same at the rate of 12%. With the above modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv -4- S.A.464/1997 HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. -------------------------- S.A.NO.464 OF 1997 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd June, 2010