ORDER : T. RAJANI, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed by the defendants, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 2.2.2017 by virtue of which the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, dismissed IA No. 50 of 2017 in OS No. 367 of 2014, which was filed by the revision petitioners, under Order XIV Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to frame additional issue i.e., "Whether the suit is maintainable either in law or on facts, which is deemed fit and proper to adjudicate the case?". 2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondent. 3. The Counsel for the petitioners mainly argued that there is an admission on the part of the respondent that the amount he lent to the petitioners is not reflected in the income tax return of the respondent. On the basis of the alleged admission, the Counsel for the petitioners submits that the debt itself is opposed to public policy as being hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He relies on the following judgments: (1) The first one is the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in Satya Narain Agrawal v. Radha Mohan, AIR 1979 Raj. 126 . But, the said judgment is not relevant to the facts of the present case. It only touches upon the manner in which an issue arises i.e., when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. (2) The second judgment is rendered by the High Court of Delhi reported in Sheela Sharma v. Mahendra Pal, 2016 (3) JCC 148. It also does not help the petitioner as it only holds that where the complainant claims to have advanced a friendly loan in cash, and where the transaction of loan is not evidenced by any other document, the aspect whether the availability of funds in cash with the complainant and its advancement as loan to the accused have been reflected in the income tax returns of the complainant or not, is irrelevant. It went on to say, "However, these considerations would not be relevant, where loan transaction itself is otherwise established, either through documentary evidence-such as, a receipt or a loan agreement, or acknowledgement executed by the accused, or by oral evidence of an independent witness who is found to be credible". The Court further observed that in the case which is being dealt with by the Court, the loan transaction though not recorded in an agreement, or a receipt or acknowledgement executed by the accused, and though not reflected in the income-tax returns of the complainant, is evidenced by the oral testimony of CW 2, who is an independent witness and highly credible. 4. Hence, the above two judgments are completely against the argument of the Counsel for the petitioners and the latter judgment would in fact support the impugned order. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners relies upon another judgment of the High Court of Madras in K.T.S. Sarma v. Subramanian, 2001 (3) LW 520 , by mentioning certain circumstances where the maxim "in pari delicto" cannot be applied, it is held at Paragraph No. 25 as follows: 25. The above said criteria and the principles laid down, are not available in the instant case, which would enable the defendant to set up a defence that the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant is illegal and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to benefit of the maxim in pari delicto. The High Court relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Sita Ram v. Rddha Bai, where the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis" and it was held as follows: "The principle that the Courts will refuse to enforce an illegal agreement at the instance of a person who is himself a party to an illegality or fraud is expressed in the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. But, as stated in Anson's principles of the English Law of Contracts, 22nd Ed., Page 343, there are exceptional cases in which a man will be relieved of the consequences of an illegal contract into which he has entered cases to which the maxim does not apply. But, as stated in Anson's principles of the English Law of Contracts, 22nd Ed., Page 343, there are exceptional cases in which a man will be relieved of the consequences of an illegal contract into which he has entered cases to which the maxim does not apply. They fall into three classes: (a) where the illegal purpose has not yet been substantially carried into effect before it is sought to recover money paid or goods delivered in furtherance of it; (b) where the plaintiff is not in pari delicto with the defendant and (c) where the plaintiff does not have to rely on the illegality to make out his claim." 6. The petitioner stands on the same footing. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the order of the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.