Konkimalla Veeresham vs Pudduturi Vajrama

Mishra, C.J.—I have heard the applicant''s learned Counsel and I am definitely of the opinion that a revision does not lie against a, mere finding of the Court below.

The suit was based upon a promissory note. At the time when the plaint was presented, the promissory note was not filed and on the date on which it was brought on record, the limitation for filing the suit had expired. It was urged on behalf of the Defendant in the lower Court that the plaint should be deemed to have been presented on the date on which the promissory note was filed and the suit way therefore barred by time. The contention was based on Order 7, R. 17, Civil P. C, which renders the production of a document, on which, the Plaintiff relies, imperative on the date on which the plaint is presented. It is said that according to the Code, the plaint must be deemed not to have been presented on the date it was actually filed but should be deemed to have been presented on the date on which the promissory note was filed. This is wrong. According to Order 7, R. 18, a document which ought to be produced by the Plaintiff when the plaint is presented and which is not so produced, should not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. A very wide discretion is thus vested in the Court in connection with the reception of a document which did not accompany the plaint. The presentation of, plain and the acceptance in evidence of a supporting document are two different things. There is nothing in the Code which would render the plaint unaccompanied by the supporting documents ineffective or its presentation void. Order 4, which was referred to by the applicant''s learned Counsel, has no application. The Court below, therefore, rightly refused to accept the argument in bar of limitation.

Another preliminary point raised by the Defendant was that the promissory note was not properly stamped. On this matter also, the Court came to a finding against the Defendant. The result is that both the preliminary objections are over-ruled & the case is now set down for evidence.

In this revision petition, it is contended by the Defendant that the view of law taken on the two preliminary points by the learned Sub-Judge at Karimnagar is wrong. Obviously, there is no defect of jurisdiction involved, and it is impossible to entertain the revision u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure

Before I conclude this judgment, I would like to say for the guidance of the subordinate Courts that there is no warrant in the Code for deciding issues piece-meal unless the Court decides to apply Order 14, R. 2, which is an exceptional provision applicable to cases when the point of law raised is likely in the opinion of the court to be fatal to the suit or the defence. The Privy Council has laid down repeatedly that as a general rule when a number of issues arise in a case, it is the duty of the trial Court to give its findings on all issues in order to avoid a remand. To enter upon each question separately and then to bring the finding thereon to this Court either by way of revision or appeal is wholly wrong. The practice cannot be deprecated too strongly, for, besides being unauthorised it also results in holding up the decision of the case for unconscionably long periods.

This application has no force. I reject it summarily.