IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.27 OF 2008 Date:26-08-2011 Between:- Sontineni @ Sonti Venkata Ramana ..Appellant/Plaintiff And M/s.S.R.K. Health & Life Style (P) Limited, rep. By its Managing Director, Khammam. .. Respondent/Defendant THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.27 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 06.06.2007, in O.S.No.163 of 2002 passed by the the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. 2. Heard. 3. The case of plaintiff is that he is a business man and the defendant is a Private Limited Company, that the plaintiff is one of Directors of the defendant company, that the Director and Chairman of the defendant company requested the plaintiff to invest an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and that the plaintiff invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the defendant and his mother also invested Rs.2,00,000/-, totaling to Rs.5,00,000/- to the company on 21.12.2000 with an interest @ 14% p.a., that subsequently the defendant did not choose to repay the amount inspite of repeated demands. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and the defendant got issued reply notice admitting the same but the defendant has taken a plea that the plaintiff is share holder of the company and that he has invested the amount, but not lent the amount to the defendant. Hence, the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that he is doing business on medical side and the plaintiff is one of the Directors of the defendant company, but he was not paid monthly remuneration of Rs.10,000/- p.m., but the plaintiff being graduate engineer he was entrusted with construction work during that period and an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., was paid to him. The plaintiff gave the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant company towards investment, but he has not lent the amount as mentioned in the plaint. Hence, he has to proceed under the Companies Act to safeguard his interest and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff invested Rs.2,00,000/- for interest at the rate of 14% p.a in defendant company? Or purchased shares of the defendant company? 2. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 is examined but no documents were marked. 7. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit amount has been lent to the respondent company for interest @ 14% per annum. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the plaintiff has lent the amount for purchase of shares in the defendant company and therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue. 10. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment and decree of the trial court are correct and proper? 11. A specific plea has been taken in the written statement by the defendant that the amount advanced by the plaintiff was for the purchase of shares in the company and therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction. An issue arises where a particular fact or proposition of law is maintained by one party and controverted by the other. The primary object of framing proper issues is to ascertain the controversy and rival contentions between the parties. On this aspect, no issue has been framed by the trial court. Therefore, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the trial court to frame an issue as to whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to decide the point involved. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law by giving opportunity to both the parties to let in their evidence. 12. Subject to the above observations, the appeal suit is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 26.08.2011, Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.27 OF 2008 Date:26-08-2011 Gk.