The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O. S. No. 123 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda, pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate counsel for the Respondent: Mr. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER -7 o HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CwIL REVISION PETITION No. 1797 ol 2o24 ORDER:

1. Heard Mr P. Prabhakar Reddv, 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 learnecl Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.l19 of 2024 in O.S.No. 123 of 2016, dated 16.04.2024, wherein, the said petition hled bv the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the petitioner/defendant sicle evidence by setting aside the orcler passed on 13.03.2024 and give chance to the petitioner/ defendant to ( ontcsI the matter, has been dismissed.

3. The background fercts are [hat the suit in O.S.No.123 of 20l6 was {iled for re('()\'cr\ of tls.7.tl4.5OO/- along with interest on the basis of promisson notcs rlated iO.O9.2O13 and 09.O9.2015 from the defendant, 'lht' suit claim arose from monetary transactions invoh, ing u lrolesale ancl retail sale of textiles wherein the petitioner hereirr lrorrorr.ed an amount of Rs.4,OO,00O/- as hand loan from tht' rcsporrdcnt hercin on 1O.O9.20.l3 by executing a promisson' note ,.lr)dcr }fx.A1. Thereafter. the petitioner ./ 2 borrowed another amount of Rs. 1,5O,000/- on O9'O9'2O15 from the respondent and executed another promissory note under Ex.A2. Then, there was failure to par the borrowed amount leading to hling 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 \r'as posted for arguments of petitioner/defendant, an additional issue has been frarned but no opportunity was given to cross examine the respondent/plaintiff on said issue. When the petition vide I.A.No.18 of 2024 to recall PWl for cross examination on additional issue was dismissed, a Civil Revision Petition i.e. CRP No. 1 I95 of 2024 was preferred' In that regard, a memo u'as filed before the Trial Court, however, on

16.O2.2O24, the matter s'as posted for petitioner/ defendant evidence and thereafter, conditionally posted on l3'O3'2O24' At that time, the petitioner felt ill with fever and was unable to attend the Court and therefore, the petitioner's evidence was closed and the matter rvas posted lor arguments. On that, the petition under revision was hled to reopen the petitioner/ defendant side evidence to contest the matter on the additional issue. On the ground that in spite of giving number of adjournments, the petitioner herein I n 3 failed to adduce evidence and therefore, in the face of the time frame set up by this Court to dispose of the matter within three months, the petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. While dismissing the petition, it is also held that no document is fileci by the petitioner herein to show ill health and no document is filecl to show that the respondent is doing money lending business. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Trial Court allowed the petition to frame additional issue but has failed to give opportunity to cross examine PW I anrl the same was dismissed on 16.02.2024. Aggrieved b_v the same, CRP No. 1195 of 2024 was frled. On 13.03.2024 , u'hen the case \r'as posted for evidence of the petitioner, as the petitioner was suflering from fever and could not attend the Court, the evidenc<'was closed. lt is pleaded that fair chance is not given to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner u.hrch is violation of the prir-rr:iples of natural justice. Further, it is pleaded that there is a sta-y of all further proceedings and the learned Judge ought not to have closed the evidence of the petitioner. At that stage, another CRP No.1004 of 2024 was filed and the samc is pending to refer the promissory I .\ notes to an expert opinion. For the aforementioned reasons, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. Perusa-l of the docket proceedings in CRP No.10O4 of 2024 shows that an interim stav of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 123 of 2016 was granted on 19.O4-2024 i.e. more than one 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.10O4 of 2024. Therefore, there is no error committed by the learned Trial Court in violation of 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 respondent/ plaintiff evidence commenced uav back in the -year 2017 and also exhibits were marked. Thereafter, the matter was prolonged for petitioner's evidence/arqumcn ts rill the year 2023 arrd at that stage, the petitioner herein filed I.A.Nos.398 and 399 of 2023 fot framing additional issue and to reopen the case. An additional issue has been framed and thercafter, as no additional evidence was led by the respondent herein, the matter was posted for evidence of the petitioner. At rhat stage, the petitioner herein filed two interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos. 17 and 18 of 2024 to I I I I I i I ') 5 sen(l the promissory notes for expert opinion and to recall pW1 for cross examination on additional issue and the same were drsrnissed. Aggrieved by the same, CRp Nos. lO04 and l l95 of 2021 w,ere preferred. In addition, the petitioner hled the present pctition under revision before the learned Trial Court to reopen his e'iclr:.ce to contest the matter arld the sarne was dismissed. tt is helcl bv the learned Trial Court that sullicient opportunity was given to lead the petitioner's evidence b.y posting the matter on

16.o 2.'2024 and t3.O3.2O24.

8. The only reason cited for not leading evidence is that the petitioner was having fever on 13.03.2024. It is to be seen that cvr.r since the closing of respondent,s arguments and the matter rr as posted for petitioner,s/defendant,s arguments, the petitioner hercur has come up w.ith applications to frame adclitional issue :rn<l iifter allowing of the said applications, u.hen the matter stood l)ost€(1 for petitioner's evidence, he did not appear. As rightlv pointcd out by the Trial Court, sufficient opportunitv *,as given, houcver, the petitioner did not utilize the opportunitv to put forth Iris <,r'iclence on additional issue. The defence taken in the *.ritten staternent is already adduced at the first instance u.hile examining I)W I u'ho in his cross examination stated that no document is 6 a) filed to prove that the respondent is carrying on money lending business without license.

9. After conclusion of evidence of both the sides, there is no question of giving an opportunity to lead petitioner's evidence as he has already adduced evidence through DWI and Exhibits in'B' 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.ll9 ot 2024 in O.S.No. 123 of 2O16, dated, 12.02.2024. Pending miscellaneous applical ions, if an-v, shall stand closed. No costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER '1. The Senior Civil Judge at Miryataguda 2. OrE CC to Mr. P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Mr. HARI KTSHAN KUD|KALA, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies RC/PSL I I i I I E I t t t 1 i ! 1 I i I , , t i I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 3011012025 ORDER CRP.No.1797 of 2024 (J ( t IHE SI4 1[ ri1 t't,t( 2 6)\ Oto -ATCt * Accordingly, this CRP is Dismissed. : t ! ! t