ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 17.07.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in I.A.No.779 of 2019 in O.S.No.481 of 2018. His prayer for summoning certain documents for evidence is negatived by the trial Court.

2. The respondent in the revision is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. O.S.No.481 of 2018 is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,69,466/- based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.2,00,000/- said to have been executed by the defendant on 10.05.2017. In the plaint, it is stated that the defendant borrowed money and promised to repay, but the defendant failed to repay despite notices and therefore, the suit. The defendant in the suit filed his written statement, denied the plaint allegations and stated that he never borrowed money and never executed the suit pronote. He mentioned certain facts from para Nos.8 to 10 and finally sought for dismissal of the suit. Issues in the suit were settled. It seems that evidence on plaintiff’s side was over and the suit was coming up for collecting evidence from the defendant and it was at that stage, the defendant filed I.A.No.779 of 2019 under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 and Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer that is extracted here:

“That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Honourable court may be pleased to order to direct the persons/officials whose particulars are given hereunder to submit relevant documents detailed hereunder and to give evidence and pass necessary orders in the circumstances of the case. Particulars of witnesses and documents to be produced

1. Bhargav Sundar Raj s/o. Sundar Raj Charane, D.No.11/96-5B, Poolavanigunta, Akkarampalle post, Tirupati urban Mandal, Chittoor District.

To produce “Pronote, dt 22.06.2015 for Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have been executed by defendant”.

2. Dinesh s/o. Kannaih Naidu, Illupaithandalam Village, Arakkonam taluk, Tamil Nadu.

To produce “Reply notice, dt 27.08.2018 issued by Dinesh through his counsel S.Duraimurugan, Advocate, Kanchipuram.

3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati To produce 1) 12.12.2017 Special notice of property tax assessment to the defendant by Tirupati Municipal Corporation.

2) 14.12.2017 pay receipt of tax for the year 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.

4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Settipalli, Renigunta road, Tirupati.

To produce pay in-slips submitted by the petitioner/defendant Tirumalapudi Balaji s/o late Nagabhushanam for S.B.A/c No.33536045063 IFSC: SBIN0006677 showing the deposited amounts for the year 2014-2016 containing the signatures of defendant/Tirumalapudi Balaji and his specimen signatures lying with the bank while opening the account.”

3. In the sworn affidavit of the defendant filed in support of that application, he reiterated the facts that mentioned in his written statement from para Nos.8 to 10. The substance of that case; is there is one Mr. Bhargava Sundarraj and he got issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2018 through his learned counsel calling upon this defendant to pay him certain amounts mentioned in the said notice. Thus, the defendant issued a reply notice dated 08.06.2018. It is also stated that one Mr. Dinesh, who is son of the plaintiff, lent Rs.1,50,000/- to this defendant on 22.06.2015 and this defendant with the help of loans obtained by his wife repaid that debt, but Mr. Dinesh did not return the promissory note and this defendant got issued a notice dated 08.06.2018 calling upon him to return the said promissory note and he did not return it but gave a reply notice dated 27.08.2018 denying the allegations. The pronote dated 22.06.2015 claimed by Dinesh is time barred. However, taking advantage of the signature of this defendant on that pronote in favour of Dinesh, the signatures of this defendant on the present suit pronote is forged. It is on these facts, he wanted Bhargava