IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.07.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA,J., C.S.No.6 of 2006 M.Manickam Chettiar .. Plaintiff vs L.Vincent Proprietor Barachah Agencies Chennai 600 017. .. Defendant This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,51,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs and fifty one thousand only) with future interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation with costs. For Plaintiff : Mr.PL.Narayanan For Defendant : No appearance JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money from the defendant.
2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed and parodied thus:
The defendant borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh and Rs.1 lakh and executed four promissory notes dated, viz., 29.01.2001, 11.05.2001, 27.07.2001 and 01.08.2001 respectively in connection with the business purpose and agreed to repay the borrowed amount with 24% interest per annum. He paid, some amounts as revealed by the statement of accounts towards interest. However, subsequently, he issued certain cheques, which got bounced as he had no sufficient funds in his accounts. The statement of accounts enclosed with the plaint would reveal that the suit is not barred by limitation as within three years from the last date of payment of interest, the suit was filed.
3. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning, the averments/allegations in the plaint the defendant filed the written statement, the sum and substance of it would run thus:
The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff during the year 2001 and in consideration of the same, the plaintiff obtained promissory notes and also blank cheques executed by this defendant. The defendant also paid considerable amount to the plaintiff till the year 2005. The defendant so far paid a sum of Rs.14,35,000/- as set out here under:
————————————————————————–
2000-2001 Rs. 40,000.00 2001-2002 Rs. 4,30,000.00 2002-2003 Rs. 4,56,000.00 2003-2004 Rs. 3,89,000.00 10.07.2006 Rs. 40,000.00 10.07.2006 Rs. 49,000.00 10.07.2006 Rs. 11,000.00 By cheque Rs. 20,000.00 --------------------- Total Rs. 14,35,000.00 ============= --------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amounts so far paid by the defendant should not have been adjusted towards interest only; but, it should have been taken as one in discharge of the entire dues by the defendant. The suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4. My learned predecessor framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.12,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% pa on the principal sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as prayed for ?
2. Whether the defendant has discharged the suit claim to the tune of Rs.14,35,000/- by post dated cheques?
3. Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious in nature?
4. Is the plaintiff, right in crediting the initial payments towards interest and not towards principal?
5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit?
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
5. During trial, before the learned Master, on the plaintiff’s side, the plaintiff’s authorised agent/Manager, Anandan on the strength of Ex.P1 executed by the plaintiff, examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. Despite opportunities given for cross-examining PW1, the defendant had not chosen to cross examine PW1 and participate in the trial before Master. Hence, the matter has been posted before me.
6. Today, also no one represented the defendant. Hence, I am of the opinion that the defendant has to be set ex parte and accordingly the defendant is set ex parte and I proceed to decide the matter ex parte.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Issue No.6:
8. This issue is relating to limitation and it is taken up as the first issue for discussion.
9. The suit promissory notes are Exs.P2 to P5. But the suit was filed only on 03.01.2006, obviously, three years after 2001. The question, therefore, would arise as to how the suit could be taken as one not barred by limitation. The plaintiff as well as the defendant in unison would admit that there were payments made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff towards interest. Ex.P7 is the bank statement issued by Bank of Baroda showing the various amounts paid through cheque by the defendant to the plaintiff and the entries would clearly evidence and establish that even during the year 2003, several amounts were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff and the defendant, those payments were made towards the debts only and that itself would enure to the benefit of the plaintiff that the suit filed in the year 2006 is not barred by limitation and the date of filing of the plaint on 03.01.2006, cannot be taken as one beyond three years limitation period.
10. Hence, Point No.6 is decided to the effect that the suit is not barred by limitation.
Issue Nos.1 to 5:
11. These issues are taken up together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, entwined and interconnected with one another.
12. PW1 by exhibiting Exs.P2 to P5, the suit promissory notes would clearly and convincingly establish that the defendant borrowed under the four suit promissory notes, a total sum of Rs.9 lakhs and the plaintiff as per the statement adjusted the payments made by the defendant towards interest as per the bank statement Ex.P11 and therefore, he filed the suit claiming the principal amount and also the remaining accrued interest.
13. Absolutely, there is nothing to indicate and display that the statement filed by the plaintiff is false. There is no rebuttal evidence forthcoming from the defendant either by cross-examining PW1 or by the defendant examining himself as witness and producing documents.
14. Accordingly,
Issue No.1 is decided to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for.
Issue No.2 is decided to the effect that the amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, as per the calculation of the plaintiff, was adjusted by the plaintiff towards the interest accrued.
Issue No.3 is decided to the effect that the amount borrowed is for commercial purpose and the claim of 24% interest is not exorbitant or usurious.
G.RAJASURIA,J.,
vj2
In view of the ratiocination adhered to deciding the aforesaid issues, Issue Nos.4 and 5 are also decided in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.
15. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs and the subsequent interest shall be 24% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation on Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only).
vj2