High Court · 2025

... Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant AND Tedla Laxmaiah, S/o Seethaiah, Aged 73 years, Occ . Business, R/o. H.No.1 1-38, Seetharampuram, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District ... RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: I OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fir-ed in support of the.peltr:'lft; iign court *.yG'iLaseo to grant stay of all further proceedings in o.s.w o.lqq ii2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda, pendini Oisposal of CRpI Counset forthe petitioner: SRI p.pRABHAKAR REDDY COUNSCI fOr thE RESPONdENTS: SRI HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA The Court made the following: ORDER ! HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RTNUKA YARA no. ORDER: 1- Ht:ard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. Harikishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

2. This civil Revision petition is preferred aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.13 ot 2024 in o.s.No.l44 of 2016, dated 12.02.2024, wherein, the said petition fited by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evilence Act seeking to forward Ex.Al for expert opinion has been disrnissed. The t,ackground facts are that the suit in o.s.No.l44 of 3. 2016 was filecl for recovery of Rs.4,57,5OOl- along with interest on the basis ol' promissory note dated 1o.09.2O13 from the defendant. Ttre sl-it claim arose from monetary transactions involving whc,lesale and retail sale of textiles wherein the petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.3,oo,oool- as hand loan from the respondent herein on 10.09.2013 by executing a promissory note under Ex.Al. Then, there was failure to pay the borrowed amount leading to filing of the suit- The petitioner \ \ : i ; l H i B .."r.. ent. After lrearing the arguments of respondent' when the matter was posted for arguments of petitioner/defendant' an addition' o"*, n* O:"" framed- As the respondent reported no further evidence' the matterwasposted'forthepetitioner,Swidencei.e..defendant,s evidence.Atthatstage,thepetitionunderrevisionwasfiledto send Ex-Al/Promissory note dated LO'O}'2O13 to a handwlittnS expert.ThelearnedTrialCourtdismissedtheapplicationleading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition' In grounds of revision' it is pleaded that there are 4. corrections with respect to date portion of promissory note rn Ex.Aldatedlo.og.2ol3whereinthemonthwhichisreflectedas ,1, to denote the month of January was corrected as '9' to denote the month september. In view of the corrections' it is pleaded that Ex.Aloughttohavebeenreferredforanexpertopiniontoprove forgery and fabrication' Without assigning any reason about forgeryandfabrication,thepetitionhasbeendismissedinviewof thedirectiongivenbytheHighCourttocompletethetrialwithin threemonths.Thelearned'TrialCourtdi.dnotconsiderthe pleadinginthewrittenstatementthatEx.Alpromissorynoteis I ::3:: forged and fabricated. Hence, prayed that the revision petition be allowed. Le.arned counsel for the pefitioner referred to Ex.Al

5. promissonr note and contended that promissory note ,; 10'o1'201lr is corrected by adding a small circle at the top of numerical .1, to denote 9, in the month i.e. fO.Ol.2Ol3 to be depicted asr ro.og.2013. In order to prove this fabrication; it is necessary to send the disputed document fo:r €rn expert opinion. Further, it is submitted that the only reason for dismissing the application is direction of this court to dispose of the suit witrrin a period of three months. In case, opportunity is not given, the judgment pa:ssed would be sim,ar to that of an ex_parte decree. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, there is a need to allow the application. 6' In response, the learned counser for the respondent submitted th.t Ex-Al was produced way back in the year 2016 along with the: praint. The petitioner had knowredge about the said documents fr<lm in the year 2016 onwards. Further, Ex.Al was marked in the year 2017. Thereafter, after ttre completion of arguments of respondent/plaintiff, when the matter was posted for argumetrts of petitioner/d.efendant, two interlocutory ri42: ( applications were filed to frame an additional issue as to whether or not the respondent is having ricense for rending money. Thereafter, apart from the petition under present revision and two more applications were filed to recall pwl for cross examinatiorr on the additional issue and to reopen petitioner/defendant side evidence. Since the petition under revision is filed to 'send disputed document for expert opinion after lapse of six years, the petition was dismissed.

7. The sequence of events shows that in a simple suit for recovery of money based on promissory note ancr receipts, the respondent/plaintiff was examined way back in the year 2o1T ancl Ex.Al was marked. Thereafter, there is progress of the suit till arguments. At the stage of petitioner/defendant argurnents, two interlocutory applications were filed vide I.A.Nos.4oO and 4or of 2023 to frame additional issue by reopening the case. Additional issue was framed and the respondent herein reported no further evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner herein instead of leading evidence about the additionar issue, filed the present application under revision to send the documents to an expert opinion. .r.his exercise could have ben taken up before the suit progressed to the stage of arguments of petitioner. In case, the prea of forgery and 5 fabricatiof: wES taken at the time of filing of the written statement itself, nothing prevented the petitioner from referring the document for €rn expert opinion at an earlier stage after marking of the exhibit in the year 2OL7. [nstead, the petitioner herein conveniently waited for the matter to progress up to the stage of arguments and in the face of the order passed by this Court in CRP No.3Oti5 of 2022 to dispose of the suit within three months from 2O.OI.2O23, has chosen to file interlocutory applications which woukl considerably delay the disposal. The learned Trial Court has taken two reasons into consideration i.e. the petition being liled after lapse of six.years and the order given by this Court to dispose of the suit within three months, while dismissing the petition. A perusal of the record shows that the corrections in the

8. month of the promissory note is a defense taken in the written staternent which was filed on 26.12.2Ot6. There is a reference of filing of two more suits by the respondent or his wife in o.S.Nos.123 and 129 of 2016 and payment of Rs.11,OO,OOO/- by the petitioner for which receipt dated 22.C,3.2016 was passed by therespondentinfavourofpetitioner.Thepromissorynoteisin thehandwritirtgofthepetitionerhimselfandthesaidfactisnot i \ \ /, ; I ; I t I : ::6:: denied. The petitioner could. have filed the present appliqation to refer the documents for an expert opinion at least at the stage when the matter was posted for petitioner/defend'ant evidence' Instead, he waited until the matter was posted for petitioner,S arguments and then came up with the present application along withtwomoreapplicationstorecallPWlforcrossexaminationon theadditionalissueandtoreopenpetitioner/defendantside evidence.Theconductofthepetitionerdoesnotinspireconfidence aboutcontestingthecasefairlyonmerits.Theconductshows ratheranattemptatprotractingtheproceedingsbycomingup withapplicationswhichcouldhavebeenfiledattheearlieststage immed.iatelyafterframingofissuesintheyear2o|7.Therefore, this court sees no ground to interfere with the impugned order' g. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed. by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.13 of 2024 in O.S.No.l44 of 2016, dated L2.O2.2024. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, shall stand closed. No costs- sDr- //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To, 1 Tha.eaninr eivil -tudoe at Mifvalaotrla

2. One CC to SRt P.PRABHA|(AR REDDy, Advocate IOPUCJ 3. One C;C to SRt HAR| KTSHAN KUDIGLA, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies }\I\/B/PSL w / i o rl'rt ii, li'lili It HIGH COURT I \ DATED :gOtlOtZOzS ORDER CRP.No.1033 of 2024 lrhtE 1 6 i,tAfl 2020 * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION G ,$s &-