Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2 (AP)

A. Varalakshmi v. Boddu Tarakeswara Rao

2020-01-03

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
JUDGMENT : M. VENKATA RAMANA, J. 1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against orders in I.A. Nos. 97 of 2018 and 98 of 2018 in O.S. No. 13 of 2016, dated 01.08.2018, of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (PoA) Act. 2. The defendant is the petitioner in both these petitions. I.A. No. 97 of 2018 was filed to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and I.A. No. 98 of 2018 was filed to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The respondent, as the plaintiff, laid the suit for recovery of Rs. 17,13,333/- with costs and future interest at 24% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- basing on a promissory note alleged to have had been executed by the petitioner in his favour on 25.12.2012, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. 4. The petitioner resisted the suit, among various grounds, denying the execution of the promissory note. 5. The suit is coming up for evidence on behalf of the petitioner, after evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed on 03.01.2018. When the suit was posted for evidence on behalf of the petitioner, on 05.02.2018, both these petitions came to be filed in the trial Court. 6. The reason assigned by the petitioner in both the petitions for reopening the evidence of the respondent and to recall him for further cross-examination is that the respondent did not have means to lend such a huge amount under suit promissory note and suits were filed against third parties by other. Further contention of the petitioner is that certain blank promissory notes and cheques were taken by the elder brother of the respondent, Sri Boddu Ramanujaiah, for the purpose of security, though entire amount was repaid by the principal borrowers. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Sri Boddu Ramanujaiah is a State government employee, who promised to return the instruments so taken and who failed to return them, on the pretext that those instruments were misplaced on account of his transfer, while promising to return them whenever they were traced. 7. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Sri Boddu Ramanujaiah is a State government employee, who promised to return the instruments so taken and who failed to return them, on the pretext that those instruments were misplaced on account of his transfer, while promising to return them whenever they were traced. 7. Thus alleging that these instruments were misused through the respondent and others by Sri Boddu Ramujaiah, it is the contention of the petitioner that in order to establish these facts as well as the modus operandi in the family of the respondent in these transactions, certain documents have to be confronted to PW-1 viz. the respondent, in support of his defence. Therefore, for such purpose, the petitioner claimed that it is necessary that PW-1 be recalled after reopening evidence on behalf of the respondent. 8. Both these petitions are resisted on behalf of the respondent stating that the reasons so assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted and that the purpose for which PW-1 has to be recalled is neither relevant nor necessary to decide the issues involved in the suit. Purpose of confronting certain documents containing signatures of PW-1 executed by third parties in favour of brother and sons of the respondent, according to his version, is neither relevant nor necessary. Stating that the purpose of filing both these petitions is only to procrastinate the matter and denying the grounds set up by the petitioner questioning his capacity to lend such money, it is stated that there is no necessity to recall PW-1 nor to reopen the evidence of the respondent. 9. The learned trial Judge considered the contention of the parties and also the manner in which the proceedings went on in the suit, did not choose to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner either to reopen the evidence of the respondent or to recall PW-1 for further examination. Thus, basing on the material as well as the pleadings, the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Judge. 10. Now, the point for determination is whether the respondent as PW-1 be recalled in the circumstances stated by the petitioner and for such purpose to assist his defence? POINT: 11. Thus, basing on the material as well as the pleadings, the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Judge. 10. Now, the point for determination is whether the respondent as PW-1 be recalled in the circumstances stated by the petitioner and for such purpose to assist his defence? POINT: 11. Relevancy of the material which the petitioner intends to introduce through PW-1 and confronting him is certainly an important factor, having regard to the suit claim as well as the defence set up by the petitioner against it. 12. As seen from the material on record, it is manifest that the transactions which the petitioner is trying to refer, relate to third parties and to which the petitioner is not a party. In such circumstances, when the learned trial Judge, in his discretion, refused to accept the request of the petitioner, it cannot be deemed inappropriate. Observations were recorded by the learned trial Judge, upon considering the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Rati vs. Mange Ram (Died) through LRs. (2016) 3 ALD 162 (SC), Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs. vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 , Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1 and K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC and of this Court when at Hyderabad in Gollu Satyavathi vs. Kilaparthi Appa Rao, (2018) 1 ALT 503. When it is felt unnecessary to recall PW-1 only for the purpose of confronting such instruments bearing signature of the respondent either relating to his brothers or others covering certain financial transactions, it cannot be in any manner found fault with. 13. The objections so raised on behalf of the respondent need to be taken into consideration in this context. The predominant consideration for the trial Court in relation to issues that crop up for the purpose of trial are in respect of the execution of the suit promissory note. When it stands for main consideration, it cannot be stated that such unnecessary and irrelevant record be permitted to be confronted to PW-1. The attempt of the petitioner seems to delay disposal of the matter further, which cannot be encouraged. 14. Therefore, in the above circumstances, both these Civil Revision Petitions have to be dismissed, confirming the orders of the learned trial Judge in both the petitions. 15. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The attempt of the petitioner seems to delay disposal of the matter further, which cannot be encouraged. 14. Therefore, in the above circumstances, both these Civil Revision Petitions have to be dismissed, confirming the orders of the learned trial Judge in both the petitions. 15. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit possibly with a period of six (06) months subject to cooperation of parties and their learned counsel. 16. As sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.