Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 462 (AP)

Pothalapala Hari Krishna v. G. Krishnamurthy

2024-04-16

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
ORDER : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.14 of 2019 before the III Additional District judge, Tirupati for recovery of money, based on a promissory notes, against the petitioner herein. 2. The respondent had marked the said promissory note as Exs.A.1 and A.2. However, the respondent did not examine the attestors to the said promissory notes. The petitioner herein moved I.A.No.13 of 2023 for summoning the second attestor as a witness in his case, and I.A.No.125 of 2023 for reopening the suit for adducing the evidence of proposed witnesses, on the ground that the petitioner, after his examination as a witness in the suit, had come to know, through mediators, that the alleged scribe and attestor had fabricated the suit promissory notes with the active collusion of each other and therefore it is necessary to summon the attestor as a witness. 3. These applications were resisted by the respondent herein on various grounds. The respondent contended that the applications for reopening evidence and summoning the attestor as a witness had been filed after the evidence on both sides had been closed and that the question of reopening of the evidence at the stage of arguments cannot be permitted unless extraordinary circumstances are made out by the applicant. The respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in Batchu Jagadeesh Kumar v. Mugili Venka Swamy, 2015 (5) ALT 284 AP. The respondent also contended that the petitioner herein, while alleging forgery and fabrication of promissory notes in his written statement, had not taken any steps for demonstrating that the signature on the promissory note was a fabricated signature. The respondent also contended that the present application for reopening of the evidence of the petitioner and for summoning the attestor as a witness has only been filed as he had won over the said attestor, and permitting such witness to be examined would not assist any proper adjudication of the case and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. The trial Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed both the applications by order dated 20.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed these two revision petitions. 5. Sri. 4. The trial Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed both the applications by order dated 20.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed these two revision petitions. 5. Sri. C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the evidence of the attestor, in relation to the question whether there has been fabrication of the promissory note, is essential and there can be no objection for summoning and examining a person who has been put forward by the respondent as attestor of the suit promissory note. He would submit that the trial Court misdirected itself on the said question and had dismissed the applications simply on the ground that the trial in the main suit had been completed and it is at the stage of arguments and consequently the matter should be proceeded without taking further time for examination of witnesses. He would further submit that the trial Court also erred in holding that such applications should not be allowed on the ground that the proposed witness had been won over by the petitioner herein. 6. A perusal of the order of the trial Court would show that the applications for reopening of evidence and for summoning the attestors as witness was filed after the evidence on both sides had been closed and the matter was coming up for arguments. The trial Court also considered the question of whether the petitioner was aware of who the attestors were and the fact that no explanation has been forth coming as to why the applications had been moved before the trial Court at such a belated stage. It is clear that the trial Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner, that he came to know of the fabrication of the suit promissory note after his examination had been completed. 7. The case of the petitioner, shorn of all details, is that Exs.A.1 and A.2, suit promissory notes, were fabricated with the assistance of the attestors and scribe of these documents and that these persons are relatives of the respondent who had created these documents in collusion with the attestors and scribe. The said fabrication, is said to have come to the notice of the petitioner, through mediators, only after his examination had been completed. This contention of the petitioner is in direct contradiction to the written statement filed by the petitioner. The said fabrication, is said to have come to the notice of the petitioner, through mediators, only after his examination had been completed. This contention of the petitioner is in direct contradiction to the written statement filed by the petitioner. In this written statement the petitioner denied the execution of the suit promissory notes. It is pertinent to note that the written statement was signed on 16.08.2019 while the affidavit in the applications was signed on 14.12.2022. 8. The reason given in the application, for reopening of evidence and for summoning of the attestors, as witnesses, is the alleged discovery of fabrication of the documents after the examination of the petitioner as a witness. This reason is apparently incorrect in view of the above contradiction. 9. It must also be noted that these applications have been filed after completion of the evidence on both sides. This Court in Batchu Jagadeesh Kumar v. Mugili Venka Swamy had held that reopening of evidence at the stage of arguments could only be allowed in exceptional and rare cases. Such applications can be allowed only where it is demonstrated that the party seeking such reopening was unable to produce evidence or produce witnesses despite due diligence and that facts which were not known earlier had come to light subsequently. In the present case, no such circumstances are available. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the trial Court and these two civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.