IMPORTANT POINT
Reopening evidence at the argument stage requires exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated by the petitioner, undermining the application to summon attestors.

ORDER :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.14 of 2019 before the III Additional District judge, Tirupati for recovery of money, based on a promissory notes, against the petitioner herein.

2. The respondent had marked the said promissory note as Exs.A.1 and A.2. However, the respondent did not examine the attestors to the said promissory notes. The petitioner herein moved I.A.No.13 of 2023 for summoning the second attestor as a witness in his case, and I.A.No.125 of 2023 for reopening the suit for adducing the evidence of proposed witnesses, on the ground that the petitioner, after his examination as a witness in the suit, had come to know, through mediators, that the alleged scribe and attestor had fabricated the suit promissory notes with the active collusion of each other and therefore it is necessary to summon the attestor as a witness.

3. These applications were resisted by the respondent herein on various grounds. The respondent contended that the applications for reopening evidence and summoning the attestor as a witness had been filed after the evidence on both sides had been closed and that the question of reopening of the evidence at the stage of arguments cannot be permitted unless extraordinary circumstances are made out by the applicant. The respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in Batchu Jagadeesh Kumar v. Mugili Venka Swamy, 2015 (5) ALT 284 AP. The respondent also contended that the petitioner herein, while alleging forgery and fabrication of promissory notes in his written statement, had not taken any steps for demonstrating that the signature on the promissory note was a fabricated signature. The respondent also contended that the present application for reopening of the evidence of the petitioner and for summoning the attestor as a witness has only been filed as he had won over the said attestor, and permitting such witness to be examined would not assist any proper adjudication of the case and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

4. The trial Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed both the applications by order dated 20.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed these two revision petitions.

5. Sri. C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the evidence of the attestor, in relation to the question whether there has been fabrication of the promissory note, is essential and there can be no objection for summoning and examining a person who has been put forward by the respondent as attestor of the suit promissory note. He would submit that the trial Court misdirected itself on the said question and had dismissed the applications simply on the ground that the trial in the main suit had been completed and it is at the stage of arguments and consequently the matter should be proceeded without taking further time for examination of witnesses. He would further submit that the trial Court also erred in holding that such applications should not be allowed on the ground that the proposed witness had been won over by the petitioner herein.

6. A perusal of the order of the trial Court would show that the applications for reopening of evidence and for summoning the attestors as witness was filed after the evidence on both sides had been closed and the matter was coming up for arguments. The trial Court also considered the question of whether the petitioner was aware of who the attestors were and the fact that no explanation has been forth coming as to why the applications had been moved before the trial Court at such a belated stage. It is clear that the trial Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner, that he came to know of the fabrication of the suit promissory note after his examination had been completed.

7. The case of the petitioner, shorn of all details, is that Exs.A.1 and A.2, suit promissory notes, were fabricated with the assistance of the attestors and scribe of these documents and that