Written statement filed on behalf of Defendant u/s Or 8 Rule 1 CPC

 

In the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge : Nellore

 

OS No. 000 of 2011

 

 

xxx		Plaintiffs
	Vs
yy		Defendants

 

Written statement filed  on behalf of Defendant

 u/s Or 8 Rule 1 CPC.

 

1.      Most of the averments mentioned in the plaint are not true and the plaint is not maintainable under law. Such other averments which are not specially admitted herein are denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

 

2. The averments in Para 3 of the plaint that the defendant barrowed an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on dt. 25-02-2010 and executed the suit promissory note is absolutely false.  This promissory was executed by the defendant in renewal of old promissory note dated  26-04-2007 which was also executed in series of renewals of old promissory notes.  Initially the defendant barrowed Rs.10,000/- on 02-11-1999., and Rs.15,000/- on Dt. 02-12-1999 and again Rs.10,000/- on 02-08-2000 on execution of promissory notes on even dates in favour of Plaintiff. The defendant again barrowed Rs. 20,000/- executing a fresh consolidated promissory note on 05-05-2001 for Rs. 60,000 in renewal of the Old promissory notes dated  02-11-1999, 02-12-1999 and 02-08-2000.  The defendant paid Rs.55,000/- to the plaintiff  and executed a fresh promissory note dt 05-11-2002 for Rs.27000/- in renewal of the  old promissory note dated 05-05-2001 towards interest only. The defendant again paid Rs. 17,000/- and executed a fresh promissory note dated 08-11-2002 for Rs.10,000/- in renewal of old promissory noted dated 05-11-2002 for its balance amount. On 06-12-2004 the defendant paid Rs. 5000/- and executed a fresh promissory note for Rs. 10000/- for the balance amount in renewal of old promissory note dated 08-11-2002.  The defendant barrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 15,000/- on 06-04-2005 and Rs.15,000/- on 07-07-2005, and again Rs.1,00,000/- on 25-04-2007 and executed promissory notes on even dates.  As such the defendant could not pay these amounts, he executed a fresh consolidated single promissory note in renewal of these four Promissory notes on 26-04-2007 for Rs.2,00,000/-  The defendant again executed a fresh promissory note  for Rs. 2,50,000/- on 25-2-2010 in renewal of old promissory note dated 26-04-2007.   All the calculations were noted on the face of these promotes. Thus this pronote is not supported  by any consideration.

 

3.      The averments made in Para 4 and 5 of plaint that the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-  on  27-11-2008 from one Zzz and subsequently the defendant failed to pay any portion of the amount are absolutely false. In fact the defendant originally barrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from one Zzz and executed a promissory note dated 01-07-2004. Later on 03-10-2006 the defendant repaid Rs.50,000/- to Zzz and expressed his inability to pay the interest., accordingly the  Zzz agreed and received the amount, when the defendant insisted for endorsement of the same on the back and return of the pronote, she replied that the pronote was with her brother and promised to get it back from her brother for endorsement of full payment. The defendant believed her words and out of confidence and good faith the defendant did not press for the pronote.

 

4.      After some time  on 27-04-2007, the defendant went to the house of Zzz and requested her to lend Rs.1,00,000/- for his urgent necessities.  But the Plaintiff agreed to pay only Rs.75,000-00 if the defendant executes a promissory note for Rs.1,14,000/- including the interest of Rs.39,000/-  on the earlier promissory note dated 01-07-2004. Since the defendant is in dire need of money and no other option to go.,  he is forced to execute a promissory note dated 27-04-2007 for Rs.1,14,000/- and received only Rs.75000-00. Surprisingly one day Zzz called on the defendant and demanded him either to repay the entire amount immediately or to execute a fresh promissory note in renewal of the old promissory note  dt 27-04-2007.  The defendant requested time for few days but she forced the defendant to yield to her demand. Since the defendant was unable to repay the same he executed a fresh promissory note dated 27-11-2008 for Rs.1,68,000-00 in renewal of old promissory note dt 27-4-2007. All calculation were made out on the face of the promissory notes evidencing the transactions.  

 

5.      Further, the averments in Para 6 of plaint are  absolutely false to allege that the said  Zzz transferred the suit pronote for a valid consideration is sham, nominal and collusive. The said  Zzz and the plaintiff are relatives., and as such  Zzz colluded with the plaintiff and made the alleged endorsement of transfer with  an evil motive. The  alleged endorsement of transfer is not supported by consideration,  hence the plaintiff is not a holder in due course and is not entitle to file the suit.

 

6.      The averments in Para 7 of plaint that the defendant is not an agriculturalist is false and baseless. The defendant is having 3-00 Ac of wet agricultural land at Pallipadu village of Indukurpet mandal with salable interest of his 1/3 share and as such interest is liable to be scaled down right from the date of  inception i.e.  from the date of original promissory notes, as per Andhra Pradesh Agriculturist Debtors Relief Act IV of 38 (for short 'Act IV of 38').

 

7.      The averments in Para 5 in the plaint that this defendant did not make any payment even after the receipt of the registered notices dated 14-03-2011 is not true. In fact, after receipt of the regd. Notices, the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,22,500/- in the presence of  his relative. When the defendant insisted for endorsement of the same on the back of pronote, the plaintiff replied that the pronote was with his advocate and promised to get it back from the advocate for endorsement of part payment. The plaintiff also at that time promised that no suit will be filed. The defendant believed his words and out of confidence and good faith, he did not give any reply notice. Taking advantage of this, the plaintiff mischievously filed the suit for wrongful gain.

 

8.      The plaintiff is a money lender. He lends money at a very higher rate of interest and takes only the fresh pronote for the balance amount with out making any endorsement on the back and simply returns the old promissory notes.  This defendant  who was in dire need of money forced to agree to the terms of the plaintiff. Thus the suit pronotes are not supported by any consideration to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,68,000/- respectively.

 

9.      As such no cash was lent under the suit promissory notes which were executed in renewal of prior promissory notes and are not supported by consideration to the extent shown on their face. Hence the suit claim is not maintainable under law and the suit is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

 

Advocate for defendant	Defendant
	V E R I F I C A T I O N   I the defendant herein do hereby declare that facts stated above are all true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.     Defendant