High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF l.A. NO: 2 OF 2006{ASMP' NO: 2272 OF 20061 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the decree and judgment dated 15-12-2oosinoSNo'14of2OO2onthefileoftheAdditiona|ChiefJudge-Cum- Judge, FamilY Court, Secunderabad' Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P' B' Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Eranki Phani Kumar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I I I t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE H.N'BLE sMT. ,r"ll" TTRUMALA DEvr EADA APPEAL SUIT No. 715 0F. 2o0,6 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon,ble S|?t. Justice .litumaLa Deut Eacla) This is an appeal filed by the appellant _ defendant, being aggrieved by he judgment and decree, dated 05.12.2O05 passed in O.S.No. 14 ol 2OO2 by the learned Judge, Family Court. Secunderabacl (for short ,.the trial Court,,). 2. The par._ies are addressed herein as they u,ere arrayed in the suit bcfore the trial Court for the sakc of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that it was a registered firm by name M/s.Saraswathi Saw Mills and conducting its business in manufacturing a variety of machinerv packing material. pursrrant to the orders placed by the defendant between 10.06.1998 to t2.OZ.1ggg, it has supplied material worrh Rs.7 ,37,620 l-, irs per the requirements o[ the defendant and as per the respective F,urchase orders and But the defendant lnvolces failed to make any payments within 3O days and that the defendant has also agreed that if any delay in payment occurs, he shall pay an interest of 1g% per annum from the dare of in,oicc, since the transar:tion is a commercial one. The plaintiff got issued ,_r:*" notice derted 31.12.2001 and the defendant has issued a 1 AKS,] & ETD,] AS No.715-2006 reply notice confirming the outstanding dues as Rs'7'37'619 20 as on31.03.20o1andapo1ogized'forthedelayinpaymentbygiving replies on O5.l2 2OOL , ll Ol '2OO2 and also 04 'O1'2OO2 but has not paid any amounts' It is his case that the defendant never denied its liability at any point of time' Thus' the plaintiff claimed a principal amount of Rs 7 '37 '62O / - and interest (l 18% per annum as per the invoice dates through the suit'

4. The defendant has filed its written statement through its Assistant General Manager denying all the aliegations made in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable under Order 37 Rule 11 of CPC and has further contended that all the bills pertaining to the suit transactions are of the year 1998 ' as such thesuittransactionisbarredbylimitationandisliabletobe dismissed. The defendant has lurther denied the suppiy of materialundertheallegedbiilsshownintheplaintandalsothe alleged outstanding amounts to be paid with interest (a)l8o/o per

5. Based on the above pleadings' the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial. " 1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim amount to the PlaintifP 2\ Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? 3 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.715 2006 3) 4l \Vhether the defendant is liabie to pay interest if so a t what rate? 'I'o what reliep,,

6. At the Lime of bial, the plaintiff got examined pWl and got marked trxs.A 1 to A67, while the defendant got exarnined DW1 but no documentr; have been marked. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit with costs against the clelendant for rn amount of Rs. l1 ,j2,gO3/- with interesi tt,1g%o per annum from tee date of suit till realization. Aggneved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is pref.errecl bv the unsuccessful defendant.

7. Heard the submi ssions of Ms.Mercy Vrjaya representing Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appcllant and Sri Eranki phani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. B. The learn:d appellant counsel has submitted that the rate of interest avrarclerl by the trial Court is very high but has admitted that the transaction is a commercial one. She further argued that the suit itself is not maintainable as it is fi1ed under Order 37 Rule 11 of CPC as it does not pertain to any bill ol. exchange or a promlssory note. She further contended that the suit is barred by transactions pertain to 199g and that al1 the limitation as th,: AKS,] & ETD,I As No.715-2006 transactions are individual in nature and thus' cannot be treated as a singie transaction' Therefore' prayed to allow his appeal' g. The respondent counsel' on the other hand' has argued that the appellant havtng received the material suppiied by them has failed to pay the amounts tiil date and that the trial Court has considered the said factor and has taken into consideration ail the ' documents filed by them and has therefore ' rightly decreed the suit. He further submitted thal since the transaction is admittedly a commercial one awarding rate of interest @18% per annum is quite reasonable and has therefore' prayed to uphold lhe same' 10. Based on the above rival contentions' this Court frames the following points for considerat ion: to recover the amount irom the defendant? I I Whcther the plaintiif is not " 2\ Whether the judgmcnt ^nd ''d:'tj::.:l"["ti;*' =t-ti' Court is sustainable in law and unoe To what relief? 'cnt'itled 3) ii. PO INT NO.1: a) The contention of the appellant is that the trial Co ved at exorbitant amount without considering the evid record and that there is no evidence to show that the defendant should pay interest for the due amolrnt to the plaintiff' It is further ence on urt has -r'4 I I I I I 1 i i I i t I I I I t 5 contended br the apperlant that the suit is beyond the limitation AKS,J & ETD,] AS No.71S-2006 period of b) Ietters and It is tle case of the piaintiff that it has been addressing '(lticee to the clefendant and the.defendant has been admitting its iiability but was not making paymenrs, thus having vexed with the attitude of the defendant, thsy got issuecl a legal notice on 3i. I 2.2OOi under Ex.ASB. c) It is borne out by record that the defendant company has been admittir-rS; its Iiability vide its acknowledgmenrs senr to the plaintiff on sevr:ral dates under Exs.A13, 19, 22,25,26, 30,33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 4C,, 42, St and further there is a confirmation of balance amount on 31.O3.20O0 under Ex.ASS and also a confirmation orr O5. 12.2OOl received by the plaintiff from the defendant unde:- Ex.A60. Thus, it is elicited that the defendan[ has never deniec its liabiliry, further it has acknowredged the same and confirmed Lhe balance amount finally in the year 2OO 1. Ex.ASB shows thirt the legal notice was issued on 31.72.2OO1. d) The defendrlnt company has not disputed about the material supplied by the prlaintiff and its liabiiity to pay the plainriff in its pleadings. Since, the transactions went on and the acknowledgmenls were a confirmation datecl received, further AKS,] & ETD, AS No.71s,2006 6 o5.r2.200rwas also issued by the defendant and the regal notrce is dated 3\'12'2{)Ol'it is held that the suit is well within limitation as it is filed in the Year 2o02' e) appellant/ defendant howeve The liabililY of Payment is not disPuted bY the r, he disputes only the interest part lt 1, in his cross examination' that there is elicited from Plaintiff/ PW e parties with regard to lhe payment of is no agreement between th interest in the event of delay in payments Though PW1 has added Lhat every bill which is marked as exhibit has the recitals of interest @ l9%per annum and that the defendant company has accepted for the interest ciause even while sending its quotations and accepting the material' he admitted that in Ex L62 which is his letter written to the defendant requesting for payment of amount, it is mentioned as Rs.7,37,620/- which is due from the defendant and that they have not mentioned about the interest part in the statement of account enclosed to Ex A62 Thus' it is elicited from PWl that they have not claimed any interest through their letter addressed vide Ex A62 dated' 28'12'2OO 1 A perusai of trx.A62 reveals that the plaintiff requested the defendant for and there is no whisper about the payment of Rs'7 '37 '620/- interest and the same was conhrmed by the defendant through his r;rfV aatea 11'012OO2 under ExA61' which * '"t '; 7 AKS,] & ETD,] AS No 715 2O0G communication between the piaintiff and the defendant prior to the suit filed on 23.07.2OO2 Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is cntitled to recover and the defendant is liable to pa5,. an amount of Rs.7 ,37,620 / - to the plaintiff as on the date of suit. poinL No. 1 is answered acco:dingly

12. POINT No.2: a) The grievance of the appellant is that during the pendency of the suit itselt, they have paid Rs. 1,5O,OO0/_ vicle DD on 07.O1.2OO4 anc another amount of Rs.4,06,45 4/_ on 16.OL2OO4, while the <Iatc of decree is dated 05. 12.2OO5, that the said payments ilre not considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has simpty calculated interest @ lg% p.a. on the said principal amount of Rs.7,{}7,620/_ and arrived at Rs. 1 I ,l2,gO3 / _. b) It is an acmitted lact that the amount due by the defenclant to the plaintiff is Rs.7,37 ,620 /_ Lowards principle arnount, over which the plaintirT is craiming 1g% per annum interesr. c) A perusal c,f all the credit bills for example Ex.A3, Ag, A 1 1, l\14, AIT etc., there is a clause to pay interest (g 18% p.a. on outstanding bills after i5 days. Thus, the plaintiff has clairned Rs.1 1,12,903/- blr caiculating 1g% p.a. interest on the amount of Rs.7 ,32,620 /_, hor.vever, it was an error on part of the trial Court 8 AKS,J & AS No.715-2006 for not deducting the amounts paid by the defendant during the pendencY of the suit It is borne out by record through the calculation memo fi1ed d) by the judgment debtor in E P No 24 of 2006 in O'S'No' 14 of 2OO2 that the defendant has paid an amount of Rs l'5O'O00/- on 07.Ol.2OO4 by Demand Draft and Rs'4'06'454/- on 16'01 2004' total to an extent of Rs 5,56,454/- during the pendency of the suit' which is not considered by the trial Court Thereafter' pursuant to the direction of this Court, while granting Stay to the appellant, the Court has directed to pay 5O%o of the decretal amount' thus lhe defendant has paid an amount of Rs'7'14'6621- on O5'l2 2006 and also an amount of Rs.51,340/ - on 18.L2.2oo6 vide Demand Drafts respectively into the account of the Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Secunderabad' Thus' the total amou'nt paid by the defendant i.e. appellant herein comes up to Rs'13'22'4561- as on 18.12.2006. e) On the other hand, if the amount claimed by the plaintiff is considered, admittedly, the due amount of defendant r'r'as Rs.7 ,37 ,620 I - as per E;x.L62 served by the plaintiff on the defendant. On the said sum, the plaintiff has claimed l8o/o per annum interest. Even if that is considered from the date of suit, {he total amount due by the defendant would come up to -, /,- 9 AKS,] & ETD,] AS No.715 2006 Rs.13,74,141l- (interest @18%o trom 23.O1.2OO2ro 08.1L2006 i.e. Rs.6,36,52 1./- + Rs.7,37,620/-). Thus, there is only a difference of Rs.51,685/- between the amount paid by the dclendant and the amount clairned by the plaintiff. However, it is also not out of place to mcrLtion that even the amount paid by the defendant is l1,ing in the FDR before the Additional Chief Judge, Ci[ Civil Court, Secunderabad which also fetches accrued interest on the said amounts paid by the defendant on OZ.OI.2OO4 to an extent of Rs.1,50,OOO/ , on 16.01.2004 to an extent of Rs.4,O6,454/_, an amount of Rs.7,14,662/_ on 05.12.2006 and also an amount of Rs.51,340/- cleposited on 18.12.2006. The interest rhat gets accrued on the amount deposited by the defendant in the Court t't'ould bc muclt more than Rs.5 i,6g5/_ even if calculated (c!6,% per annum on Rs.5,56,454l_ (Rs.+,OO,454/_ + Rs. 1,50,000/_) from 16.O1.2OO4 to 18.12.2006. Therefore, it is hetd that the interest of Justice rvould be met in case if the proceedings are put to an end between both the par[ies, as the amount claimed by the plaintiff is already deposite,d by the defendant. f) Hence, it is heid that no more amount needs 1.o be paid by the defendant irr the suit. Thus, the judgment passed by the trial Court needs to lre set aside as the trial Court failed to consider the / ,/ 10 AKS,] & ETD,I AS No 715-2005 amount paid by the defendant during the pendency of the suit' Point No.2 is answered accordingly' 1S

13. POIN T NO.3: In the result, the aPPeal allowed ietting 215ldg the judgment and decree' dated O5'12 2005 passed in O S'No 14 of 2OO2 by the iearned Judge' Family Court' Secunderabad and the plaintiff is directed to withdraw the amount deposited by the of the Additional Chief Judge' City Civil defendant in the account following due procedure' No costs' Court, Secunderabad' bY Miscellaneous APP lications, if any, pending in this appeal shal1 stand closed' sd''t NN+LJlsrsIs IITRUE COPY" ECTION OFFICER To, o u : 1 o:::',,;ff ::'#'l;:T:, J,T' 1 r he J ud s e, F am*', 2 rhe Additio"' "n'*.l'o;;.J,l,loor"*," toPucl 3. one cc to sri t 4. One CC to Sri Eranki Pt 5. Two CD Copies ' ":1;;;ar, Advocate topucl VH/PSL (k HIGH COURT DATED: 11t07IZO2S (\ :'_ .. -. ; --:--. \'1.-.. .,', { 2 2 SEP 216 I il '/ JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.715 of 2006 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS a -\'*A #F, rN rHE H|GH ""u*If3$JffoBt#E oF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY 'iwo'iirilutnr'ro nruo rwENrY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI rHE HoNouRABLE s*r .,0!P't= TIR,MALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 715 OF 2006 Between: il'ls:;:?:,SSt81"rl'ne$'H,i/l+Y';-13l1"'l;-?'H'?+'5:t"JI'd3030"n""' ...APPELLANT/DEFEN DANT AND M /s s a ra swath i s aw late Ramii Patel, aged 49 Ye \/l il ls, .!; g tJ y i:1, : \s#$i ig'i i3 I3:'Ii *fl :,85i ?" ..RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal filed under section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated osllzl2oosinosNo.l4of2OO2onthefileoftheCourtoftheJudge,FamilyCourt' Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the iudgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri p. B. vijay 11urn61' 4ivssste for the Appellant and Sri Eranki Phani Kumar' Advocate for the Respondent' _-- This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l That the Appear suit be and hereby is arowed setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 05.12.2005 passed in O.S.No. 14 of 2002 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. 2 The praintiff is directed to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant in the account ':f the Additionar chief Judge, city civir court, secunderabad, by following due procedure; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I. NAGA JOINT RE LAKSHMI GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ! S ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J The Judge, Farnily Court, Secunderabad. The Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Secunderabad Two CD Copies; VH \q-, HIGH GOURT DATED: 11tO71ZO2S DECREE AS.No.71S of 2006 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 6-P84 &t'6