Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1059 (AP)

Tirumalapudi Balaji v. D Kannaiah Naidu

2022-10-18

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2022
ORDER : This civil revision petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 17.07.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in I.A.No.779 of 2019 in O.S.No.481 of 2018. His prayer for summoning certain documents for evidence is negatived by the trial Court. 2. The respondent in the revision is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. O.S.No.481 of 2018 is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,69,466/- based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.2,00,000/- said to have been executed by the defendant on 10.05.2017. In the plaint, it is stated that the defendant borrowed money and promised to repay, but the defendant failed to repay despite notices and therefore, the suit. The defendant in the suit filed his written statement, denied the plaint allegations and stated that he never borrowed money and never executed the suit pronote. He mentioned certain facts from para Nos.8 to 10 and finally sought for dismissal of the suit. Issues in the suit were settled. It seems that evidence on plaintiff’s side was over and the suit was coming up for collecting evidence from the defendant and it was at that stage, the defendant filed I.A.No.779 of 2019 under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 and Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer that is extracted here: “That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Honourable court may be pleased to order to direct the persons/officials whose particulars are given hereunder to submit relevant documents detailed hereunder and to give evidence and pass necessary orders in the circumstances of the case. Particulars of witnesses and documents to be produced 1. Bhargav Sundar Raj s/o. Sundar Raj Charane, D.No.11/96-5B, Poolavanigunta, Akkarampalle post, Tirupati urban Mandal, Chittoor District. To produce “Pronote, dt 22.06.2015 for Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have been executed by defendant”. 2. Dinesh s/o. Kannaih Naidu, Illupaithandalam Village, Arakkonam taluk, Tamil Nadu. To produce “Reply notice, dt 27.08.2018 issued by Dinesh through his counsel S.Duraimurugan, Advocate, Kanchipuram. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati To produce 1) 12.12.2017 Special notice of property tax assessment to the defendant by Tirupati Municipal Corporation. 2) 14.12.2017 pay receipt of tax for the year 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Settipalli, Renigunta road, Tirupati. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati To produce 1) 12.12.2017 Special notice of property tax assessment to the defendant by Tirupati Municipal Corporation. 2) 14.12.2017 pay receipt of tax for the year 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Settipalli, Renigunta road, Tirupati. To produce pay in-slips submitted by the petitioner/defendant Tirumalapudi Balaji s/o late Nagabhushanam for S.B.A/c No.33536045063 IFSC: SBIN0006677 showing the deposited amounts for the year 2014-2016 containing the signatures of defendant/Tirumalapudi Balaji and his specimen signatures lying with the bank while opening the account.” 3. In the sworn affidavit of the defendant filed in support of that application, he reiterated the facts that mentioned in his written statement from para Nos.8 to 10. The substance of that case; is there is one Mr. Bhargava Sundarraj and he got issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2018 through his learned counsel calling upon this defendant to pay him certain amounts mentioned in the said notice. Thus, the defendant issued a reply notice dated 08.06.2018. It is also stated that one Mr. Dinesh, who is son of the plaintiff, lent Rs.1,50,000/- to this defendant on 22.06.2015 and this defendant with the help of loans obtained by his wife repaid that debt, but Mr. Dinesh did not return the promissory note and this defendant got issued a notice dated 08.06.2018 calling upon him to return the said promissory note and he did not return it but gave a reply notice dated 27.08.2018 denying the allegations. The pronote dated 22.06.2015 claimed by Dinesh is time barred. However, taking advantage of the signature of this defendant on that pronote in favour of Dinesh, the signatures of this defendant on the present suit pronote is forged. It is on these facts, he wanted Bhargava Sundarraj to produce pronote dated 22.06.2015 and Mr. Dinesh to produce reply notice dated 27.08.2018. 4. It is further stated that the suit pronote being forged, to prove the correctness or otherwise of the signatures on the suit pronote, a comparison is required and therefore, his pay in-slips with the bank and his account opening form with the bank are relevant documents as they contained his signatures and for that purpose he wanted the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Settipalli, Tirupati to produce those documents. 5. 5. His further contention is that the plaintiff has shown him as resident of D.No.22/11-101/A1, Gollavaanigunta and the same address is shown in the pronote also. However, by the date of alleged pronote 10.05.2017, Tirupati Municipal Corporation did not allot such a door number and the said door number was for the first time allotted on 12.12.2017. To show these facts, he wanted the Municipal Commissioner to produce certain notice and tax receipts. It is with those reasons he moved the application. 6. As against it, the plaintiff in the suit filed a counter stating that it was filed at a belated stage and the allegations mentioned in the petition are untenable and the petition is only to protract the proceedings. That this plaintiff is not aware of the transactions that allegedly took place between the defendant and two other persons. The principles contained in Order XVI Rule 7 C.P.C. are not complied with. For all these reasons, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned trial Court, on hearing both sides and on considering the material on record, dismissed the petition. At para No.8 of the impugned order, it stated that the proposed documents and witnesses are not helpful for deciding the main contentions of the defendant in the suit and his main contention in the suit was that the suit pronote is a forged one. Moreover, his written statement and affidavit did not disclose that he ever signed any empty pronotes in favour of the so-called others. To prove or disprove genuineness of the signatures on the suit pronote that documents between the defendant and two others are irrelevant. Coming to the questions raised concerning door number of the residential house of the defendant, it stated that evidence in that regard in one way or other by itself could not throw out the case of the plaintiff and therefore, those documents are unnecessary. Finding that the petition is only to procrastinate the case, learned trial Court chose to dismiss the petition. Aggrieved of it, the defendant has come up with this revision stating that the order of the trial Court is erroneous as it did not permit him to establish his own defence and this defence was taken in the written statement itself. It is further stated that learned trial Court failed to consider his prayer concerning the bank and Municipal Corporation. It is further stated that learned trial Court failed to consider his prayer concerning the bank and Municipal Corporation. For these reasons, he seeks to set aside the impugned order. 8. Despite notices, none appeared for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted arguments. 10. Considering the submissions and the material on record, the point that falls for consideration is: “Whether the learned trial Court failed to exercise judicious discretion in considering the prayer for summoning documents and witnesses, requiring interference? 11. Point: Having gone through the entire material on record, it has to be stated that the principal contention in the suit on pronote raised on behalf of the defendant is that the suit pronote does not bear his signature and it is a forged document. It is with reference to that he wanted certain documents from the bank so that his signatures available there could be compared as against his signature on the promissory note. A reading of the impugned order does not indicate any answer from the learned trial Court on this particular aspect of the matter. Though the petition sought for such documents, the impugned order did not address it. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. Coming to the alleged exchange of notices between defendant and Sri Bhargava Sundarraj and Sri Dinesh and the alleged truth or otherwise of the transactions among them, they themselves do not prove or disprove whether the suit pronote between plaintiff and defendant was validly executed by defendant or not? Moreover, as pointed out by the learned trial Court the exchange of notices took place among them and they could be filed by the defendant himself and for that the third parties need not be summoned to produce those documents. A reading of the pleadings in the suit and the evidence and the affidavit and the counter make it clear that the reasons offered by the trial Court are satisfactory. The reasons mentioned by the trial Court make this Court to think that the defendant is incorrect in asking documents and witnesses whose presence is totally unnecessary for deciding the issues available before the Court. Therefore, to that extent the order of the trial Court has to be upheld. 13. The reasons mentioned by the trial Court make this Court to think that the defendant is incorrect in asking documents and witnesses whose presence is totally unnecessary for deciding the issues available before the Court. Therefore, to that extent the order of the trial Court has to be upheld. 13. Coming to the alleged incorrect door number mentioned by the plaintiff and contained in the suit pronote is concerned, the reasoning of the trial Court is that a decision on that aspect itself do not really non suit the plaintiff and therefore it thought that it was unnecessary. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that incorrect description of door number is not the question, but a door number that was mentioned in the pronote dated 10.05.2017 was not in existence by then, which came into existence at a later point of time on 12.12.2017 and therefore, his prayer should have been granted. This argument would suggest that the door number available on the pronote is not a fictitious door number, but it is the door number that was allotted to the defendant at one point of time. The only question whether it was allotted by the date of pronote or it was allotted at a subsequent date was the point for consideration. In the view of the trial Court that even if it was allotted at a subsequent point of time that by itself do not prove or disprove the execution of pronote cannot be said to be an unreasonable appreciation of the facts. Therefore, a valid discretion exercised by the trial Court does not require interference in this revision. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order has to be sustained. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, interference is needed in the impugned order to the extent it disallowed the prayer to summon the documents from the Branch manager of the bank. Hence, the order of the trial Court is modified to that extent while rest of the order is sustained. Point is answered accordingly. 15. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, interference is needed in the impugned order to the extent it disallowed the prayer to summon the documents from the Branch manager of the bank. Hence, the order of the trial Court is modified to that extent while rest of the order is sustained. Point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed modifying the order dated 17.07.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge in I.A.No.779 of 2019 in O.S.No.481 of 2018 and thus, the prayer of the petitioner therein, who is the revision petitioner herein, to the extent of calling Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Settipalli, Renigunta road, Tirupati to produce pay in-slips submitted by the petitioner/defendant Tirumalapudi Balaji, S/o.late Nagabhushanam for S.B.A/c No.33536045063 IFSC: SBIN0006677 showing the deposited amounts for the year 2014-2016 containing the signatures of defendant/ Tirumalapudi Balaji and his specimen signatures lying with the bank while opening the account is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.