This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in. I.A.No.170 of 2006 in O.S.No.25 of 2005 as well as the consequential orders dated 27-6-2006, viz., the docket order in IA No.182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.25 of 2005, by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.

2. The brief facts that are required for disposal of this revision are as follows:- The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant. The respondent instituted a suit in O.S.No.25 of 2005 against the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy basing on a promissory note. It is stated that on 12-6-2006 after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff, the Court below adjourned the matter to 14-6-2006 for evidence of the defendant. On that day as the petitioner was not doing well, he sought an adjournment and also filed an application in I.A.No.170 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, the Act) requesting the Court to send the suit promissory note, Ex.A-1, to handwriting expert for comparison of the figures, difference of inks and age of ink in respect of numerical No.1 and 20,000-00 and handwritings of names on the promissory note for the purpose of fair adjudication of the case. It is further stated that the Court below on 14-6-2006 while rejecting the request of the petitioner-defendant for adjournment, closed his evidence and posted the application in I.A.No.170 of 2006 to 23-6-2006 for orders and that on 23-6-2006 the Court below while dismissing I.A.No.170 of 2006 posted the suit to 27-6-2006 for judgment. In the meanwhile, on 26-6-2006, the petitioner filed two applications in I.A.Nos.181 and 182 of 2006 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, one to re-open the evidence on his side and the other to set aside the order dated 14-6-2006 passed in the suit, for fair adjudication of the case. The Court below on 27-6-2006 while dismissing the petitions in I.A.Nos.181 and 182 of 2006 pronounced its judgment decreeing the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2005. As already stated, as against the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in IANo.170 of 2006 in O.S.No.25 of 2005, as well as the consequential orders dated 27-6-2006, viz., the docket order in I.A.No.182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.25 of 2005, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned orders and other material on record.

4. According to Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Court below has grossly erred in rejecting the petitioners prayer for adjournment and consequently decreeing the suit. According to him, it is a case where there is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the petitioner and the same is due to the arbitrary closure of the evidence of the petitioner in haste, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him, in such cases of manifest error, this Court can definitely exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the contrary, Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the said submissions and contended that since a s1atutory right of appeal is provided under Section 96 of CPC, the revision itself is wholly misconceived. He would further contend that the suit itself was decreed on 27-6-2006 and hence questioning the orders passed in I.A.No.170 of 2006 does not arise as the said order culminates in the decree and judgment passed on 27 -6-2006. He would also contend that when a statutory appeal, provided under Section 96 of CPC, is available to the petitioner, the petitioner should not have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Con