Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 736 (AP)

Karri Venkateswara Reddy S/o Suryanarayana Reddy v. Karumuri Malleswara Rao S/o Venkata Ratnam

2023-05-01

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
ORDER : Plaintiff, in suit O.S.No.520 of 2015, filed the above three revision petitions against the orders dated 12.12.2022 in I.A.Nos.819, 820 and 821 of 2022 in O.S.No.520 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Suit O.S.No.520 of 2015 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,66,000/- on the strength of promissory note. Plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the plaintiff on 05.01.2015 and executed the promissory note on the same date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 02.09.2015. Defendant having acknowledged the notice, failed to repay the amount and hence, the suit was filed. 3. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that he does not know the plaintiff and he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff. Defendant while making construction of building borrowed the amount from one Satti Venkata Reddy in the year 2002. Defendant also indebted to others and he filed I.P.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The said Venkata Reddy to knock away the house property got filed criminal case through one Dwaranpuri Eswara Reddy. The said Venkata Reddy got presented and filed the suit through the plaintiff. 4. Trail in the suit was commenced. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined attestor as P.W.2. During cross-examination, defendant posed questions regarding plaintiff’s capacity to lend the amount. Those questions were put P.W.1 without pleaded in the written statement and hence, plaintiff filed I.A.No.819 of 2022 to reopen the suit, I.A.No.820 of 2022 to recall P.W.1 and I.A.No.821 of 2022 to receive documents i.e. certified copy of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and Encumbrance Certificate. 5. Defendant reported no counters. 6. Trial Court by order dated 04.12.2022, dismissed I.A.No.819 of 2022. Since I.A.No.819 of 2022 was dismissed, I.A.Nos.820 and 821 of 2022 were also dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 12.12.2022 in I.A.Nos.819, 820 of 2022, CRP Nos.2765 and 2764 of 2023 are filed. Against the dismissal order in I.A.No.821 of 2022, CRP No.135 of 2023 is filed. 8. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Varun, Advocate representing Sri M.Hari Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. 7. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 12.12.2022 in I.A.Nos.819, 820 of 2022, CRP Nos.2765 and 2764 of 2023 are filed. Against the dismissal order in I.A.No.821 of 2022, CRP No.135 of 2023 is filed. 8. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Varun, Advocate representing Sri M.Hari Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the suit was filed for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. He would also submit that without any pleading in the written statement, suggestions were put to the witness during cross-examination about financial capacity and hence plaintiff constrained to file applications to reopen the suit, recall of P.W.1 and receive documents in the suit. The defendant in fact, did not file counter. However, trial Court without considering the relevant aspects dismissed the applications. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the applications were filed after completion of evidence and hence, reopen the suit, recalling of witness and receiving of documents does not arise. 11. The point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff assigned proper reasons to reopen the suit, recall witness and to receive documents? 12. Suit O.S.No.520 of 2015 was filed for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note. The defendant, in the written statement, contended that he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. The main contention of the defendant as per written statement is that at the instance of one Venkata Reddy, the suit was filed. However, in the cross-examination, as seen from the affidavit filed in the lower Court, suggestions were put to witness regarding financial capacity. 13. Trial Court, in fact observed that the suit was not filed to determine as to whether the plaintiff is in good financial status or not. However, when suggestions were put to witness without any pleading in the written statement, plaintiff must prove his capacity to lend an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs. Defendant, as discussed supra pleaded that he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. However, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he lent the amount to the defendant, and he has also financial capacity. Of course, P.W.1 is examined as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2. Defendant, as discussed supra pleaded that he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. However, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he lent the amount to the defendant, and he has also financial capacity. Of course, P.W.1 is examined as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2. In the light of the suggestions putting to the witness, in the opinion of this Court, trial Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction and allowed the applications to reopen the suit for the purpose of recalling of witness and to receive documents. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court time and again reiterating that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case since the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his capacity of lending the amount, the orders under revisions are liable to be set aside. However, the interlocutory applications were filed after completion of evidence, the defendant can be compensated. 16. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 12.12.2022 in I.A.Nos.819, 820 and 821 of 2022 in O.S.No.520 of 2015. I.A.Nos.819, 820 and 821 of 2022 in O.S.No.520 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram stands allowed on condition of revision petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendant, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the plaintiff fails to pay the costs to the defendant within time stipulated, the order dated 12.12.2022 will come into operation. If the defendant refuses to receive the amount, the plaintiff shall deposit the said amount to the credit of District Legal Services Authority, East Godavari District and file receipt to that effect. Plaintiff shall appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing or on the date fixed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram to produce documents. The trial Court shall consider marking of petition mentioned documents subject to admissibility, proof and relevancy. Plaintiff shall appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing or on the date fixed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram to produce documents. The trial Court shall consider marking of petition mentioned documents subject to admissibility, proof and relevancy. Since the suit is of the year 2016, trial Court, shall dispose of the suit, keeping in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/2022, dated 23.11.2022, as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.