The High Court · 2025

Order

1. The Civil Revision Petition is hled undr:' Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the orde: passed rn CMA.No.7O of 2O2L, dated 2O.A. .2023 by learned Principal District Judge, Hanumako::: la.

2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner r,ubmits that the appellate Court grossly erred in dis nissing the contentions raised by the petitioner-appelLr nt in CMA, wherein he has specially pleaded that a pt tition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, is filed to disprove the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. Both the ( )ourts below ought to have seen that when the respon lent-plaintiff has not proved the very basis of the suit arL, I promissory note allegedly executed by the revisior petitioner- defendant and the respondent-plaintiff car: Lot \"r-9. the suit. I 2 BRMR,J CRP.No.1796 of2023

2.2 T}re learned appellate Court erred not in considering the petitioners pleadings and did not assign any justifrable reasons, wrongly came to a conclusion and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court.

2.3 The learned appellate Court without any basis and justihcation has dismissed the C.M.A. and prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order passed in C.M.A.No.7O of 2O2L dated 20.O1.2O23 on the hle of the learned Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda in confirming the order and decree dated

06.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.279 of 2O2L in O.S.No.543 of 2O2l on the hle of learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge Court at Warangal. 3 The learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submits that suflicient opportunit5r is given to the revision petitioner-defendant to furnish security, but he failed to do so, thereby the learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.279 of 2O2l and ttre petitioner has carrid the h BRM&J ( RP.No.1796 of 2O23 3 matter in C.M.A.No.7O of 2021, which oErme to be dismissed. The petitioner has not made oLL, any case in the revision petition and prayed to dismiss tl e same.

4. The respondent herein is the plair.r -iIT and the petitioner herein is the sole defendant in ,_ .S.No.543 of 202t.

5. It is stated in the ptaint that petitio: :r-defendant has obtained hand loan of Rs.5,OO,00O/- or or.o2.20t9 agreeing to repay ttre same with interest @)i), 6 per month and executed pro-note to that effect. Th ) petitioner- defendant has once again approached thr: ptainffi and borrowed an amount Rs.6,l respondent- i2,5OO/- on 2O.O3.2O19 agreeing to repay the same with per month and executed pro-note to that el petitioner-defendant was postponing th oterest@2%o 'ect. As the : payrnent, thereby the respondent-plaintiff has hled 22.03.2021 to pass a decree of an Rs.17,67,677 /- in his favour against the the suit on amount of person arrd ^- -/ I I i BRMR,J CRP,No.1796 of 2023 4 properties of the petitioner-defendant together with future interest @247o per annum.

6. The respondent-plaintiff along with the suit has filed I.A.No.279 of 2O2l with a prayer to attach Item Nos. 1 and 2 of petition schedule properties by dispensing notice to the respondent-petitioner herein. The revision petitioner-respondent-defendant has filed his counter in I.A.No.279 of 2O2l stating that botl tJre promissory notes are fabricated documents and prayed to dismiss the same.

7. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.08.2021 allowed I.A.No.279 of 2O2l and attached the property of the petitioner-defendant i.e., Item Nos. 1 and 2 of petition schedule properties.

8. The petitioner herein, who is respondent m I.A.No.279 of 2O2l has carried the matter by filling an appeal before the learned Principal District Ju 8€, a BRMR,J ( RP.No.1796 oI2023 5 Hanumakonda vide CMA.No.7O of 2O2L The learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda victr order dated 2O.O1.2O23 has dismissed the said CMA zuLd conhrmed the order passed by learned trial Court in .A.No.279 of 202t.

9. The trial Court in I.A.No.279 of 2O2l observed at paragraph No. 11 that the Court has issuec notice to thp respondept-defendant by granting sufflcio frorn 22.4.2O2L to 29.07.2021 till frling I rt time i.e., ' counter to furnish securit5r. However, the responder t (petitioner herein) failed to furnish security and has ru 't even show cause as to why she should not furnish s,: )urity except contesling the main suit. The learned trial r lourt further observed that the petitioner has hled ar application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act vic e I.A.No.279 of 2O2l in the main suit, which has to be dealt, in accordance to the law, "'' I , t I i i I I L I I I BRIVI&J CRP.No.1796 of2O23 (l 6

10. The order of the learned trial Court further goes to show in para Nos. 12 and 13 that the petitioner- respondent-defendant was given ample opportunit5r to furnish securit5r for the suit claim but she failed to do so, thereby the learned trial Court has assigned sufficient reasons in its order. 1#. The learned appellate Court has considered the contentions raised by the parties and has gone'through the ord.ers passed by the learned trial Court and observed in para No. 1 1 that the petitioner-appellant has not made out arry case and dismissed the CMA by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons L2. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not given opportunity to furnish security to the suit claim. As stated supra, the learned trial Court has given sullicient opporfunity to the petitioner-respondent-defendant to fumish security for the suit amount. But in spite of granting opportunity she failed to furnish securit5r and i i I I \ BRMR,J CRP.No.1796 of 2023 7 finally tl'e application fiIed of the respon,l:nt-plaintiff in I.A.No.297 of 2O2L came to be allowed.

13. Higher Courts are generally not allo,l ed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unt, ss there is a substantial question of law or if the findin;; ; are shown to be perverse or misinterpretation. Concurrr: rt findings are generally considered by the fact-frnding C< urts and they are diffrcult to overturn as they indice te a uniform appreciation of tJ,e factual aspect of zr case. Higher Courts are prevented from reevaluating u.t .ess there is a signifrcant legal error is made out. L4. The petitioner has not made out ar y case to set aside the concurrent frndings of the lea-r ned appellate Court and the learned trial Court, there ar: no merits in the CRP and the same is liable to the di,; nissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8 BRMR,J CRP.No.1796 of2023 0,

15. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD'-C.OEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Hanmakonda, Hanma 2. The Vll Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, 3. One CC to SRl. P DEVENDER Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. G ANIL KIRAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies a District PK/PSL I I i i I : i . ; I I I * .1. ( oR HES l4 ! 5 IU zlil2fi z * sr1rcu(--o { HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 D!SM!SSED CRP.No.1796 of 2023 .), v