Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1373 (TS)

Dumpeti Sushma v. Kandukuri Ravinder

2025-11-03

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER: B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed in CMA.No.70 of 2021, dated 20.01.2023 by learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda. 2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court grossly erred in dismissing the contentions raised by the petitioner-appellant in CMA, wherein he has specially pleaded that a petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act , is filed to disprove the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. Both the Courts below ought to have seen that when the respondent-plaintiff has not proved the very basis of the suit and promissory note allegedly executed by the revision petitioner- defendant and the respondent-plaintiff cannot maintain the suit. 2.2 The learned appellate Court erred not in considering the petitioners pleadings and did not assign any justifiable reasons, wrongly came to a conclusion and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court. 2.3 The learned appellate Court without any basis and justification has dismissed the C.M.A. and prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order passed in C.M.A.No.70 of 2021 dated 20.01.2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda in confirming the order and decree dated 06.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.279 of 2021 in O.S.No.543 of 2021 on the file of learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge Court at Warangal. 3. The learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submits that sufficient opportunity is given to the revision petitioner-defendant to furnish security, but he failed to do so, thereby the learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.279 of 2021 and the petitioner has carried the matter in C.M.A.No.70 of 2021, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner has not made out any case in the revision petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 4 . The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the sole defendant in O.S.No.543 of 2021. 5. It is stated in the plaint that petitioner-defendant has obtained hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.02.2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest @2% per month and executed pro-note to that effect. The petitioner- defendant has once again approached the respondent-plaintiff and borrowed an amount Rs.6,82,500/- on 20.03.2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest @2% per month and executed pro-note to that effect. The petitioner- defendant has once again approached the respondent-plaintiff and borrowed an amount Rs.6,82,500/- on 20.03.2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest @2% per month and executed pro-note to that effect. As the petitioner-defendant was postponing the payment, thereby the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit on 22.03.2021 to pass a decree of an amount of Rs.17,67,677/- in his favour against the person and properties of the petitioner-defendant together with future interest @24% per annum. 6 . The respondent-plaintiff along with the suit has filed I.A.No.279 of 2021 with a prayer to attach Item Nos.1 and 2 of petition schedule properties by dispensing notice to the respondent-petitioner herein. The revision petitioner-respondent-defendant has filed his counter in I.A.No.279 of 2021 stating that both the promissory notes are fabricated documents and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.08.2021 allowed I.A.No.279 of 2021 and attached the property of the petitioner-defendant i.e., Item Nos.1 and 2 of petition schedule properties. 8. The petitioner herein, who is respondent in I.A.No.279 of 2021 has carried the matter by filling an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda vide CMA.No.70 of 2021. The learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda vide order dated 20.01.2023 has dismissed the said CMA and confirmed the order passed by learned trial Court in I.A.No.279 of 2021. 9. The trial Court in I.A.No.279 of 2021 observed at paragraph No.11 that the Court has issued notice to the respondent-defendant by granting sufficient time i.e., from 22.4.2021 to 29.07.2021 till filing of counter to furnish security. However, the respondent (petitioner herein) failed to furnish security and has not even show cause as to why she should not furnish security except contesting the main suit. The learned trial Court further observed that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act vide I.A.No.279 of 2021 in the main suit, which has to be dealt, in accordance to the law. 10 . The order of the learned trial Court further goes to show in para Nos.12 and 13 that the petitioner- respondent-defendant was given ample opportunity to furnish security for the suit claim but she failed to do so, thereby the learned trial Court has assigned sufficient reasons in its order. 11. 10 . The order of the learned trial Court further goes to show in para Nos.12 and 13 that the petitioner- respondent-defendant was given ample opportunity to furnish security for the suit claim but she failed to do so, thereby the learned trial Court has assigned sufficient reasons in its order. 11. The learned appellate Court has considered the contentions raised by the parties and has gone through the orders passed by the learned trial Court and observed in para No.11 that the petitioner-appellant has not made out any case and dismissed the CMA by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. 12. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not given opportunity to furnish security to the suit claim. As stated supra, the learned trial Court has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-respondent-defendant to furnish security for the suit amount. But in spite of granting opportunity she failed to furnish security and finally the application filed of the respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.297 of 2021 came to be allowed. 13 . Higher Courts are generally not allowed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law or if the findings are shown to be perverse or misinterpretation. Concurrent findings are generally considered by the fact-finding Courts and they are difficult to overturn as they indicate a uniform appreciation of the factual aspect of a case. Higher Courts are prevented from reevaluating unless there is a significant legal error is made out. 14 . The petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the concurrent findings of the learned appellate Court and the learned trial Court, there are no merits in the CRP and the same is liable to the dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 15 . The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed.