IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SA.No. 464 of 1997(E)
1. PADMAVATHY KURUPATHY AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.V.JOSE KUTTY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :SMT.LEKHA SURESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :22/06/2010
O R D E R
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