High Court · 2025

i . This Appe rl is filed by the appellant aggrievcd by the judgment and clecree passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the Trial CourtJ O.S.No.29 of 2014, dated 3t. t2.2079.

2. Appellant is; the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. I The plaintifl- has filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,08,912/- Irc,m the defendant together with interest at the rate of 78%o per annum and costs

3.2 Plaintiff and Cefendant are known to each other for the last several years and they were in the business. The defendant during the course of business transaction has purchased food grains, pulses from the plaintiff, to that effect the defendant fell due an amount of lls. 1O,08,9 12/- as per the accounts sertled on

06.08.201 1. PlaintilT demanded the defendant to pay the amount on the date of settlement of the account but the defendant has requested for timr: thereby Memorandum of Understanding ! 2l L3 BRMR, J AS.No.3O4 of 2020 (MOU) was executed defendant

19.08.2011 on lg.Oa'2O11' As Per MOU dated shall start making Payments from Deepavali (November' 2O11) onwards and clear the same by May 2Or2. rrspite of the demands made by the plaintiff, defendanr did not pay the amount' Plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 10.03.2014 to defendant caiiing him to make the Payments within hfteen days on receipt of the notice faiiing which he will Defendant has received the notrce on take recourse under law issued a iegal notice on 13'O3 2014 12.03.2014 and he got 38,61,600/- on various counts' prayed claiming damages of Rs' to decree the suit' 4. Defendant filed his written statement; denied the allegations levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint and further contented that false cases are registered against himr and his family members under SC and ST (POA) Act' due to which they were forced to stay away from their house' taking advantage of theSamethehenchmenoftheplaintiffcommittedtheftinhis house, stolen 42 thulas of gold ornaments' Thereby his wife has Iodged a complaint against the plaintiff and his son and police have registered a case in Crime No'421 of 2013' which is under investigation. Defendant ald his son were compelled to approach this Court and filed Crl'P'No i56O4 of 2Ol3' obtained stay on the false complaint lodged against them' Defendant andfis familY t 3/ r3 BRMR. J AS. No.J04 of 2O2o members will put ro harassment and he suffered loss in the business, hardship, mental agony and his reputation was spoiled in the sociefi-. The business of the defendant was running well and was earn ng a minimum profit of Rs.6 to 7 Lakhs per annum. Due ro the illegal acts of the plaintiff he suffered a ioss of Rs_6,0O,0007 _ per annum and his customers are due to pay lakhs of rupee s to him but they defaulted in paying the same. As per clause-3 of the MOU dated 19.0g.2O11 entered between the parties the plaintiff specifically agreed to pay the damages to the defendant in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions. The plaintiff u.ith a malicious intention violated the terms and conditions o[ th,: said MOU dated f 9.0g.2011 and committed breach of contra,:t The claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly time ls no legally enforceable debt against the barred and there defendant, prayccL to dismiss the same. 5 The learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitied to recover the amount of Rs. 10,0g,912_OO from the defendant along ,,r,eth interest from the date of filing of tJle suit till the date of realization? 2) To whe.t relieli: 6 Plaintiff u,as examined as pWl, got marked Exs.At to A13 Defendant was examined as DW1, also examined DW2 4l13 BRMR' J AS.No.304 of 2020 l\ (H.Sathyanarayana) and DW3 (R Ramulu)' no documents were marked on his side' 7 (O.S.No.29 ThetriaiCourtaftergoingthroughtheevidenceofthe parties and the documents thereon has decreed the sutt against the of 2Ol4l on 31'122019 with cost and future for Rs. 1O,08 ,9L21 - wirirr subsequent interest at the rate of 6u/o pet annum on the above said amount from the date of hling the suit till the date of realization and the rest of the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed' defendant

8.1lrarnedcounselfortheappellantsubmitsthatthelearned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/ plaintiff failed to establish that an amount of Rs'10'08'912/- is due from the appellant/ defendant by cogent and independence evidence' Ex.A1/MOU, dated 19'O8'2O11 is vague and does ntt refer to the period from which the amounts are set'tled due and payable by the respondent/ Plaintiff, the said the aPPellant/ defendant to by any attestlng witness. The document is not signed examined as PWl and no respondent/Plaintiff himself independent witnesses are exarnined to establish the suit claim' 1S

8.2 The learned Judge ought to have seen that PWl has admitted in his evidence that transaction between the parties were going on since 25 to 30 years and debt is prior to 20)1 and )/ t3 BRMR, J AS. No.3O4 of202O that the details a.re recorded in the account book, but curiously account books relating to the transactions period are not filed by the respondent/ plaintiff relating to the said claim. Respondent/ plair tirf raired to prove that the consideration was passed on to [he appellant/ defendant to claim the debt amount and that he is not entitled for interest much less 6Zo on the suit

8.3 Learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that the suit filed by the respo n Cen t/ plainrilf is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed as; the claim relales to period prior to lhe vear 2011. Prayed to ser aside rhe impugned judgment.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the appellant/deft:ndant has aclmitted Ex.A1/MOU, dated 19.O8.2O11 in his cross examination and the claim iq within limitation, the appellant has not made out any case to set aside the judgment passeri by the Trial Court_

10. Heard learned counsel. perused the record

11. Now the point:; for consideration are: (i) whether tre suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred bv limitationl, (ir) whether the judgment passed by the learned XII Additional District ard Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No 29 of 2014, dated 31_12.2019. suffers from anv '/' RRMR, J AS.No 3O4 oI2020 perversity or illegality' if so requires interference oI this court or not? ! POINT NOs. 1 ar.d2i 12. Though the appellant/ defendant has taken a defence ln the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, the Trial Court has not framed any issue with regard to that- It is approprrate to consider the said point in this appeal'

13. Section 3 of Limitation Act reads as under: Bar of limitatlon: (1) Subject to the provisions contained '3. inSections4to24(inclusive)'everysuitinstituted'appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismrssed although limitation has not been set up as a defence." 'purchased

14.1 Ex.A1 is the MOU dated 19'O8'2O11 executed between the appellant/ defendant arrd the respondent/ piaintiff lt is stated in Ex.A1 that the second party (appeliant herein) ha\ food grains from the hrst party (respondent herein/ piaintiff) and to that effect he fell due a sum of Rs' 10'32'015/- as on 06.08.2011 and that the first party (respondent herein/ plaintiff) is payabie an amount of Rs 23'103/-' the same is deducted from the above said amount and the amount due is Rs' 1O'O 8'912 / - ' IL is further stated in tl'x-A1 that second party (appellant herein) requested the first party (respondent herein/ plaintiff) to wait till Deepavali and from then onwards he will start to mafe the j i 13 BRMR, J AS No.3O4 oI2O2O payment. As per Ex.A 1 accounts were settled between the parties as on 06.08.20I1 and memorandum of understanding came to be executed on 1().Og.2O 1 1. 14 .2. The transactions between the parties is a running account. Suit came to be t'iled on 16.04.2014 and it is numbered on the same day. The r.espondent/ plaintiff has hled the suit within three years on Ex.Al as the account between the parties were settled on 06.0g.201 1. Hence, the contention of the appellant,s counsel that the s.,rit is barred by limitation is negatived.

15.1 Ex.AtlMOU dated 19.08.2011 is Lhe main document to decide the lis. Con,lition Nos.2 and 3 reads as under:

2. The First party hereby declares and covenants with t}le second fl '::::: :::J:# il# ;: ;x;":: J::.T" Til::,-::: ordinal relationship as they rvere having earlier. Both the parties are willing to continue their business dealings with each ";.) a" made earlier sincc the time of their respective late fathers. 3.The First par.v hereby undertakes that hereafter he will not damage or spoil the business and the reputation of the second party in any ma -rner whatsoever in the market, in the friends circle and the societv. Failing to do so, the First pafty is liable to pay damages torve:rds loss of busrness, reputation and good will of the second partt..

15.2 Ex.A2 is the appellant/ defendanr wherein, he statfi/ t legal notice got issued by the the respo ndent/ plaintiff on 12.12.2012 Lt paragraph No.1 that .,as my client is due .J BRMR' J AS No.3O4 ot 2O2O some amount to You ln -i respect of business and Payable transactions w.ith you and to that effect you and my crient have entered into MOU on 19'08 201 l" ' F;x'A2 further states that respondent/ plaintiff has violated the clause 3 and 4 of ExAl and that he has damaged his reputation' good will and thus appellant/ defendant has initiated criminal proceedings against him.

15.3 Ex.A3 is the reply notice dated 09'01'2013 got issued by respondent/ plaintiff to Ex'A2 llegal notice denying the contents of the same- Ex'AS rs the copy of private complaint in C.C.No.lgTof2o13filedbytheappellant/defendantagainstthe respondent/ plaintiff and his son for the offence under Sections I20(B)' 352 and 355 of tPC' The date and time of offence is on 08.12.2012 at 01 00 p'm' Ex A6 is the complaint frled under \against the Section 200 of Cr'P'C by the respondent/ plaintiff appellant/ de fendant vide C C No'39 of 2013 for the offence under Section s 4O9, 42O and 506 of IPC' The date and time of offence is on o2.O1'2O13 at 11 00 hours and on 04'0i'2013 at issued bY the 10.O0 hours. Ex.A7 is the legal notice got the appellant/ respondent/ plaintiff dated 10 03'2014 calling defendant to pay Rs.10,O8p121- as per MOU dated 19'f'2OIl within 15 days from receipt of the notrce i I 9/t3 BRMR. J AS No 30+ of 2O2O t5.4 Appelia ntldefendant has got issued legal notice on 13.O3.2O14 to the respondent/ plaintifl and his son under Ex.A9 contending that the parties were doing grain business at New Gandhi Gunj. Vikarabad since decades, in the course of said business he tras to pay Rs. 10,0g,9 12 / _ to respondent/ plaintiff and they entered into a MOU on 19.0g.2011 at Vikarabad. Notice further goes rn to show that the appellant/defendant claimed a sum of Rs.3g,6t,6OO /_ from the responden t/ plaintifl towards damages. Ex.A1O is the reply notice got issued by the appellant/defendant to Ex.A7 contending that respondent/ plaintiff has vi,rlated clause Nos.2 and 3 of the MOU dated 19.O8.2O11 and the appellant/defendant is not liable to pay the alleged due amorrnt menfioned in the nolice unde_r reply. 15.5 Responden t/plaintiff has got issued repl,y to Ex.A9 notice dated i3.03.2014 through his counsel on ZS.OS.jOt 4 vide Ex.Al1 stating the fact that the appellant/defendant has to pay Rs. 10,08,912/- a:-rd denied the rest of the allegations. Ex.A12 is the deposition of the appellant/defendan r as pw2 in c.c.No.54o of 2Ol4 on the tjle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad. In the cross examination he admitted that.,it is true that I have to pzLy an amount or Rs. l o,og,g 12 / - to Krishna Reddy [respondent herein/plaintiff],,. Ex.A13 is the petition given ./ -" I I l I I r0/ r3 BRMR, J AS.No.3O4 oI2O2O by the aPPellant/ defendant to Merchant Grains and Pulses t Association on 76'12'2013' 16. The evidence of the respondent/ plaintiff is the replica of his plaint averments' in his cross-examination he stated that the dbfe ndant (appellant herein) fell due an amount of Rs. 10,o8,912/' towards purchasing food grains and pulses from commission agency and due amount is for the last three to four the year 2OlI before executing Ex'Al' months in Respondent/ plaintiff stated that details of credit transactions are not mentioned in Ex Al but the total consideration is mentioned therein and that he has not frled account books' it is not possible for him to produce the same in the Court since 6 to 7 years are lapsed. The account books are not needed since the defendant (appellant herein) has agreed that he is due the said amount' Respondent/ plaintiff further stated in his cross exam\nation that the appellant/ detendant has got issued a iegal notice claiming thedamagesofRs'38,6i,600/-fordamaginghisreputation, prestige in the society and causing loss in his business and he has given a suitable rePIY

17. Appellant/defendant during his cross-examination stated that he has received goods from the plaintiff [respondent herein] and as per the settlement arrived he is incleLrted Rs lO'O8'912/- , DRMR. J AS.Nr.304 oI2O2O to the plaintiff and executed Ex.AI. He further starecf that till the end of 2O 13 he did not make any payment ro rhe plaintiff (respondent herein) under Ex.A1 and also farled [o make payment as agr.eed in Ex.A1 by Deepavali, 2011 and that he has not asked for any extension

18. DW2 is a third party, he deposed about the execution of Ex.Al between the parties about eight years back and that the plaintiff/responrlent herein caused damages to appellant/ defenrjant. In his cross-examination he stated that Merchant Asso<;iation eiders concluded that rhe defendant (appellant herei:e) has to repay the amount under MOU on instalments. EviCence of DW3 is in the lines o[ DW2, in his cross-examinatio n he stated that he has no personal knowledge about the credit and dues payable by the defendant.

19. Appellant/clefendant has admitted thar he has to pay the amount to th€, respondent/plaintiff under MOU dated 19.08.2011 (Ex.A1) so also an admission is made in Ex.AS in paragraph No.1 that the complainant (appellant/ de fenclant) has to pay an amount of Rs. 10,0g,9 12/- Lo the accusecl No.1 therein (respondent hereir/ plaintiff), so also an admission is made by the appellant/defendant in Ex.A9 that he has to pay an amount of Rs. 1O,08,9 I 2 / - to the respondent/plaintiff, simrlar admissions ,/ cam&iet I I I t r2l13 BRMR, J AS.No.304 of 202O -l is made by the appellant/ defendant in Ex Al2 that he is liable to pay the said amount to the respondent/ plaintiff' 20. It is the contentions of the appellant's counsel that the respondent/ plaintiff has violated ciause 2 and 3 of Ex Al and claimed damages from the respondent/ plaintiff for violating the ApPellant/ defendant admitted in his cross-examination damages against the that he has not flled any suit for respondent/ plaintiff by the date of his cross-examination' The admissions made by the appellant/ defendant stated supra are suffrcient to come to a conclusion that he has executed Ex'A1 voluntarily and he is liable to pay the amount covered therein' 2t. APPellant impugned order facts of the case has not made out anY case to set aside the . The Trial Court has properly appreciated the decreed the suit of the Rs.10,o8,912/- w;lth future respondent/ Plaintiff i.nterest at the rate of 6oh per annum' from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization on the above said amount' in Part for and rightl)'

22. There are no reasons to interfere '"1'ith the judgment passed of the fact that the by the Triai Court rn v1e\'{' appellant/ defendant admitted the liability under Ex.A1 and I find no pewersitY or illegalitY in the impugned order. Hence points are answered accordinglv' _- _ _=__t : .r- Accordingll, A.S.No.304 of 2O2O is dismissed. interim orders if any stands vacated and / application s Pending, if any, shal.l applicatior-r There shall be r o order as to costs T3RMR .I AS. No 3O.l of2020 mrscellaneous stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE TION OFFICER rabad, Ranga Reddy To, //TRUE COPYII I

1. The Xlt Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vi District. (with records if any) One CC to Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate loPUC] One CC to Sri Gane sh Chelimella, Advocate IOPUCJ Two CD Copies I Kam/PSL 4iil f t. HP I .,.. HIGH COURT DATED:25 tO7t212s -,i i:l i'.: :.1-.i:.. . i ,.r-:i.'. 't.\ ,}, !\ .-:I I -: ii ,.i ,; ,t- ".:",. 2?SEP tr6 ',1, :/' JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.304 of 2020 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT \0\q rN rHE HIGH couRrffi[rtJf^?tsE oF TELANGANA '*RfilL15JH=J',X'I$II'P'S''"J#'" PRESENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B'R'MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 304 oF2020 ""Tl,7J;*u,".*,,,1y,^,j11.,_r,61: .I^:x'.;':ttl'"'rig,"J "tj.,,:ifl""*oi,lxlll"* Rr rsiness R/o H No 4' ./;;JrD: Ranga Reddv (District) ...AppellanuDefendant ANB"r"oa, Krishna Reddv, s/o late Shiva Reddy' Age: 62 years' occ: Business' R/o. New Gandhi Gunl,vVi[rirurJ nrnga Reddy District ...RespondenUplaintiff 'oto Appeal under section 96 of C P C aggrieved bv the Judgment and Decree on G tit"'otin" court of the xll Additional dated 3112.201e in os ;; ;; ;i District and Sessions Juos; Virarauai aano,a lil'JJJI['.n" srounds of appeal' "'-'"-'rn,, "oi ti" t""*"' -'rt and tre material papers in the case of Sri^ N V-11uJ"u' Reddy' Advocate for the appeal coming on for hearing and upon' the Judgment "na and upon hearing *" "n""tt' Appellant and the s'i oan""si Cnelimella' Advocate' Respondent' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: o""'"1

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall o" no iJ"' as to iosts in this appeal' SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ S TION OFFICER The Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge' Vikara District. bad, Ranga ReddY To, 1

2. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2 S1OTt2OZs DECREE AS.No.304 of 2020 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT