Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
This Civil Revision Petition Is Filed By ... vs G.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) Alt 675 on 11 November, 2022
cites
K.M.N.S.P. Nachiappa Chettiar (Dead) ... vs A.K.A. Ramachandra Reddiar And Ors. on 3 February, 1942
05. I have heard learned counsel Mrs.T.V.Sridevi for petitioner, she
would submit that rejecting petition before registering the same is bad
which has to be set aside. She would further submit that as per Order
16 Rule 14 of CPC, Court has got ample power to summon any witness
to arrive at just conclusion in the suit. It is the contention of learned
counsel for the Revision Petitioner that cross-examining the other
3
attestor and scribe of Suit promissory note is necessary to prove the
defence of petitioner in this suit. The learned counsel for Revision
petitioner relied on ratio laid down by this Court in D.K.Narasamma
Vs. G.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) ALT 675, where in it is held at para 9
at page 3 this Court discussed ratio laid down in decision P.S.Chetty
Vs K.E.Reddy 1988 1 ALT 279 where in it is held which reads as
under :
Veesam Mohan Reddy vs Rebba Pedda Agaiah on 23 November, 2007
The
Court below also discussed precedent law which laid down by
petitioner in 2008 (2) ALT 329 between Veesam Mohan Reddy
Vs. Rebba Peddagaiah and came to conclusion that, the said
Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is no
doubt true that before registering petition rejecting the same is bad
under law and Court should give opportunity for the petitioner to put
forth their case, after giving opportunity to the other side to file a
counter and then to decide the petition on merits. Even otherwise, this
Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for
Revision petitioner after perusing the facts and circumstances of the
present case. The suit is filed by the respondent against plaintiff for
recovery of his Promissory note debt dated 25.12.2010 wherein the
petitioner herein filed written statement which copy of it made
6
available to this Court. On perusal of page 3 of contents of written
statement filed by petitioner which shows that the petitioner herein is
not denying borrowing money from the respondent and affixing his
thumb impression in the suit promissory note and pleaded that
respondent/plaintiff has obtained his thumb impressions in eight (8)
blank promissory notes and one of which also created in the name of
one Mr.T.Visweswara Rao and then he approached respondent along
with Mr.Bora Srinu, Karri Simmayya and Kaki Daleappana to discharge
debt of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest which respondent has not turned
up. After considering defence of the Revision petitioner as per his
written statement, this Court is of an opinion that Court below rightly
refused to issue summons to other attestor and scribe of suit
promissory note and if petitioner intended to prove his defence before
Trial Court he may examine the persons whom he has shown in his
written statement if he is so advised. This Court did not find any
illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge
warrants interference of this court under Order 227 of Constitution of
India.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1