A party must submit properly executed affidavits to reopen cases; irregularities can lead to setting aside of trial court orders.

ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

The petitioner/defendant filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated 21.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff to reopen the suit on his behalf to file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of K.Padmanabha Reddy, who is scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note, was allowed.

2. Petitioner is the respondent/defendant, and respondent is the petitioner/plaintiff, in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,48,000/- basing on the suit promissory note dated 30.09.2017, alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant is none other than the plaintiff’s sister’s son. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. After framing of issues, both parties adduced their evidence. At that stage, the present application was came to be filed to reopen the evidence on behalf of respondent/plaintiff to examine K.Padmanabha Reddy, scribe of Ex.A1-suit promissory note. The Trial Court vide Order, dated 21.04.2025 allowed I.A.No.204 of 2025, observing as under:

“9. On perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of money under the Ex.A.1 promissory note and both the parties have adduced their evidence. At this stage, the petitioner/plaintiff has come up with this petition to examine one more witness in order to prove his case. Though, the respondent denied the petition averments, but with a view to give fair chance and opportunity to the petitioner, this petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff also filed chief examination of P.W.3 along with this petition. Further, the allegations raised by the respondent in the petitioner will be looked into the full length trial of the suit, but not in this petition…”

Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition was filed by defendant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend that 2^nd attestor, who was examined as D.W2, is none other than the brother-in-law of plaintiff, and the scribe, who is sought to be examined as P.W3, is close associate of plaintiff. It is further contended that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, signature of P.W2-1^st attestor was affixed instead of the signature of the respondent/plaintiff, and on the strength of the said affidavit, the trial Court committed irregularity in allowing the application.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff that 2^nd attestor by name S.Rama Krishna Reddy was examined on behalf of defendant as D.W2 and he did not support the case of the plaintiff in his evidence, and thereupon, the present I.A.No.204 of 2025 was filed to reopen the evidence of respondent/plaintiff to examine K.Padmanabha Reddy, scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note as P.W3. It is his further submission that substantial amount of the plaintiff has been involved in the present suit and if opportunity to examine the scribe is not given to the plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. According to the learned counsel the finding a