Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Miryala Suryaprakash, vs Talluri Srinivasa Raju on 15 June, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.57 of 2021
Miryala Suryaprakash ... Petitioner
Versus
Talluri Srinivasa Raju ... Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy
Counsel for Respondents : Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy
2
NJS, J
crp_57_2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.57 of 2021
ORDER:
The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the Orders dated 17.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.289 of 2020 in O.S.No.35 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
2. Heard Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.35 of 2019. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,25,791/- on the basis of promissory notes stated to have been executed by the petitioner in his favour. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that the promissory notes were fabricated, forged by the respondent/plaintiff along with the attestors and scribe for the purpose of the suit. It was also pleaded that there was no legally enforceable debt due to the respondent/plaintiff and there is no passing of consideration from the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant under the foot of alleged promissory notes and the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief against the petitioner/defendant.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court formulated the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether the defendant was indebted to plaintiff, for that defendant executed promissory notes as alleged by plaintiff or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff has any enforceable debt against defendant or not?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for or not?
4) To what relief?3
NJS, J crp_57_2021
5. When the matter was coming up for cross examination of the defendant, the application in question was filed under Order XIV, Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as „CPC‟) to frame additional issues i.e., 1) Whether the suit promissory notes are supported by consideration or not? 2) Whether the suit promissory notes are materially altered or not?. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. After due consideration of the matter, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by which, the present Revision Petition came to be filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the Order under Revision is not sustainable as the learned Trial Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in a correct perspective. He submits that in the present case whether there is any passing of consideration basing on the suit promissory notes is an essential factor to be decided and therefore framing of an additional issue in that regard is necessary. He submits that unless there is passing of consideration, the suit claim does not survive and in the light of the specific defence taken in the written statement, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application, seeking framing of additional issues. He submits that in fact there are material alterations in the suit promissory notes and therefore framing of a specific issue in that regard is also required. He submits that by allowing the application and framing the additional issues as sought for, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the Order under Revision.
4
NJS, J crp_57_2021
7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the Order under challenge contending inter alia that there are no material irregularities in the Order. He submits that the burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to substantiate his case and evidence was adduced by examining the attestor and scribe of the suit promissory notes. He submits that the petitioner/defendant had not filed any draft issues at the time of commencement of the trial and filed the present application only with a view to drag on the proceedings. He further submits that issue Nos.1 and 2 broadly covers all the issues and therefore there is no requirement of framing of additional issues, as sought for. He further submits that the learned Trial Judge after detailed discussion of the matter, by assigning cogent reasons, had rightly opined that there is no necessity to frame additional issues and the said well considered Order warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition.
8. On a consideration of the rival submissions and perusal on record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is "whether the Order under challenge is not sustainable and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?"
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant during the course of arguments laid much emphasis on framing of additional issue as to whether the suit promissory notes are supported by consideration or not?
10. In the written statement a specific plea was taken to the effect that there was no passing of consideration from the plaintiff to the defendant on the foot of the alleged promissory notes. To decide the said aspect, in the opinion of this Court, there is no requirement of framing of an 5 NJS, J crp_57_2021 additional issue, since it is for the respondent/plaintiff to establish his case by adducing cogent evidence. Further, the said aspect can be considered while answering issue No.1, which was broadly couched, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
11. In so far as additional issue No.2 is concerned, the learned Trial Judge after referring to Section 87 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to a conclusion that the petitioner/defendant‟s prayer merits no acceptance, by assigning reasons there for. Even otherwise, it is always open to the learned Trial Judge to frame additional issues, if required after hearing of the arguments, for just conclusion of the lis between the parties.
12. In the light of the above conclusions, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are rejected. This Court see no reason to interfere with the Order under Revision, as the same does not suffer from any material irregularity, much less perversity.
13. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: .06.2022
IS
6
NJS, J
crp_57_2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Civil Revision Petition No.57 of 2021
Date: .06.2022
IS