The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(,I YARA CI.L REVISIOII PETITION 1to.1758 at 2O24 ORDER: 1 . Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learnecj counsel for the petitioner/ defendant and Mr. Harikishan Krr likala, learned counsel for the re spondent/plaintiff. '2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred z ggrieved by the order passed b_v the learned Senior Civil Judge e.l Miryalaguda in l.A.No. 131 of 2O24 in O.S.No. 144 of 2O16, d,lted 16.04.2024, u'herein, the said petition frled by the petitioner ur der Section 151 of CPC to reopen the petitioner/defendant side eri lence by setting aside the order passed on 13.03.2O24 and gire chalce to the pctrt ioncr/defendant to contest the matter, has br:, n dismissed. :]. 'lhe background facts are that the suit i r O.S.No- i44 of :20 I tr u'as filecl lor recovery of Rs.4,57,5OO/- alonli with interest on llrr' basis of promissory note dated 10.09 , 013 from the defendant. The suit claim arose from moneta J transaction s involving s'holesale and retail sale of textile s wherein the petir-ioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.3,0( ,OOO/ as hancl loan from the respondent herein on 1O.O9.2O1ll by executing a 2 promissory note under Ex.Al, Then, there was failure to par the borrowed amount leading to filing of the suit.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the suit claim by hling written statement. After closure of evidence of both the parties, when the matter was posted for arguments of petitioner/ defendant, an additional issue has been framed but no opportunity was given to cross examine the respondent/ plaintifl on said issue. When the petition vide I.A.No. 14 of 2024 to recall PW1 for cross examination on additional issue was dismissed, a Civil Revision Petition i.e. CRP No.1215 of 2024 was preferred. [n that regard, a memo was frled before the Trial Court, ho',r'ever, on

16.02.2024, the matter was posted for petitioner/ delenclant evidence and thereafter, conditionally posted on 13.O3.2024. At that time, the petitioner fell ill with fever and was unalrle to attend the Court and therefore, the petitioner's evidence u,as closecl and the matter was posted for arguments. On that, the petitiou r-rnder revision rvas filed to reopen the petitioner/ defendan t sicte eviclencc to contest the matter on the additional issue. On the gror.rncl that in spite of giving nr-rmber of adjournments, the petitioner herein failed to adduce evidence and therefore, in the face ol the tinre frame set up by this Court to dispose of the matter n'ithin thrce \ \-- i I r) 3 months, the petition was dismissed by the learr ed Trial Court. While dismissing the petition, it is also held tJlal ro document is filed by the petitioner herein to show ill health anrl no document is hled to show that the respondent is doing money lending business. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

5. [n grounds of revision, it is pleaded that t re learned Trial Court allowed the petition to frame additional issu : but has failed to give opportunity to cross examine PWl an<l the same was dismissed on 16.O2.2O24. Aggrieved by the same. IRP No.1199 of 2024 v,as filed. On 13.03.2024, when the cast was posted for evidence of the petitioner, as the petitioner was suffering from fever and could not attend the Court, the evidenct: ,vas closed. It is pleacled that fair chance is not given to adduce evj lence on behalf of the petitioner which is violation of the prin,: ples of natural justice. Further, it is pleaded that there is a stt y of all further proceedings and the learned Judge ought not tc rave closed the evidence of the petitioner. At that stage, another IRP No. lO33 of 2O24 u,ers filed and the same is pending to refer the promissory note to an expert opinion. For the aforemention :d reasons, the presenl Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 4

6. Perusal of the docket proceedings in CRP No.1033 of 2024 shows that an interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 144 of 2016 was granted on 19.O4.2024 i.e. more than otre month after the closure of petitioner's/defendant's evidence on

13.03.2024. Thus, the petitioner's evidence was closed much before the grant of stay in CRP No.1O33 of 2024. Therefore, there is no error committed by the learned Trial Court in violation o{-the stay granted by this Court.

7. Coming to the aspect of giving an opportunity for leading portioner's/defendant's evidence, it is seen that the respondt'nt / plaintiff evidence commenced way back in the year 2O17 and alstr exhibits were marked. Thereafter, the matter was prolongecl lirr petitioner's evidence/arguments till the year 2023 ancl at th;rl stage, the petitioner herein filed I.A.Nos.400 and 4Ol of 2O2?' trti framing additional issue and to reopen the case. An additional issue has been framed and thereafter, as no additional eviclcr.rt l was led by the respondent herein, the matter was post e(l li)r evidence of the petitioner. At tllat stage, the petitioner herein filcd two interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.14 and 13 of 2O2'1 trr send the promissory notes for expert opinion and to recall PW'l for cross examination on additional issue and the same u erc \\ 5 dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, CRP Nos. 1211 and 1O33 of 2024 were preferred. In addition, the petitioner f I :d the present petition under revision before the learned Trial Cort: t to reopen his evidence to contest the matter and the sarne was r ismissed. It is held by the learned Trial Court that sufficient ('l 'portunity was given to lead the petitioner's evidence by postinll the matter on

16.02.2024 and 13.03.2024. The only reason cited for not leading evide nce is that the

8. petitioner was having fever on 13.03.2024. It is t I be seen that ever since the closing o[ respondent's arguments urd the matter was posted for peti tioner's/defendant's arguments the petitioner herein has come up u,ith applications to frame e Cditional issue and after allort'ing o[ the said applications, when I re matter stood posted for petitioner's eviclence, he did not app:ar. As rightly pointed out bv t he Trial Court, sullicient opport r rity was given, however, the pctitioner did not utitize the opportul ity to put forth his evidence or.r arlclitional issue. The defence tal<,: r in the written statement is alreadv adduced at the lirst instance vhile examining DW1 who in his cross examination stated that t o document is hled to prove that the respondent is carrying oII money lending business u.ithor.rt license. ,/ ) \ 6

9. After conclusion of evidence of both the sides, there is no queslion of giving an opportunity to lead petitioner,s evidence as he has already adduced evidence through DWI and Exhibits in ,8, series before commencement of respondent,s arguments. Therefore, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

10. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order passed in I.A.No.131 of 2O24 in O.S.No.144 of 2016, dated 16.04.2024. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stanrl closed. No costs SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda. 2. One CC to Mr. P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies RC/PSL : ; I t I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 3011012025 r'.' o o t Y I I F s Dt )ttlF z * Or I r 17,-.y-rt'a { ORDER CRP.No.1758 ot 2024 Accordingly, this C.R.P. is Dismissed. i I I I I I ! I I I I l . i : i I ! I i i : I a L