Reopening evidence requires a valid rationale; it cannot be used to fill omissions in the evidence already presented.

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

The defendant in the suit filed the above four revisions.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.59 of 2016 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, against the defendant for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note dated 06.12.2014.

3. For brevity, the parties are referred to, in this order, as plaintiff and defendant.

-

4. In the plaint, it was contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.12.2014 and executed promissory note on the even date. The defendant failed to repay the amount despite reminders. The defendant filed a Caveat O.P. No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with false allegations. The plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice, dated 18.02.2016 and thereafter filed the suit for recovery of Rs.19,38,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

5. The defendant filed a written statement and contended, inter alia, that he never borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff and denied the alleged transaction. Further, pleaded that he is not the exclusive owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is doing money lending business in Srikakulam Town since long time and used to lend money for daily interest, weekly interest etc.; that the plaintiff and father of the defendant have close acquaintance; that the defendant for his routine business transactions used to take cash adjustments from the plaintiff and return the same as per his convenience; that the plaintiff used to give cash adjustments by taking some blank promissory notes and unfilled cheques, containing signature of the defendant and the said practice continued for five years without any differences; that differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant; that the defendant approached Sri Ram City Union and obtained loan by pledging the property, in the last week of December, 2015; that the defendant totally cleared the amount due, to the plaintiff and requested him to return the blank promissory note and unfilled cheques; that on 30.12.2015, the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully demanded the defendant to pay some more money; that the defendant filed a caveat petition to the suit promissory note dated 06.12.2014; that the promissory note is a stock promissory note preserved by the plaintiff and it is not supported by any consideration.

-

6. The defendant also filed two additional written statements.

7. The trial in the suit was completed and plaintiff filed written arguments. The suit is coming up for the defendant arguments and posted to 01.11.2024.

8. At that juncture, the defendant filed I.A.No.2201 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and I.A.No.2202 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PWs1 and 2 for further cross-examination. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, it was pleaded that during the cross-examination of PWs1 and 2, the defendant could not instruct his counsel properly. Thus, the cross- examination could not cover all the material aspects and hence, it is essential to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and recall PWs1 and 2 for the purpose of cross-examination.

9. The defendant also filed I.A.No.2203 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC to receive an un-served envelop cover addressed to the son of the plaintiff. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the defendant got issued a registered legal notice to the son of the plaintiff on 07.02.2016 and the same was returned un-served. The sa