JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.27-02-2020 in I.A.No.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.207 of 2012 of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant in the said suit.

3. The respondent had filed the said suit against petitioner for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note.

4. Written statement was filed by petitioner opposing the suit claim.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 30-12-2014 the following issues were framed by the trial court:

"1. Whether the pronote dt.07-12-2009 is true valid and binding?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim amount?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest as claimed?

4. To what relief?"

Plea of petitioner in I.A.No.273 of 2020

5. After the trial concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.273 of 2020 in the Court below invoking Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. on 03-02-2020 requesting the Court below to amend/reframe the issues already framed in the following manner:

" 1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.07-12-2009 is a forged one?

2. Whether this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the place of execution is disputed?

3. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender within the meaning of the Section 2(7) of the A.P. (Telangana area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli?

4. Whether the plaintiff has capacity to lend the money allegedly referred on promissory note dt.07-12-2009?"

6. The petitioner wanted the new issues/existing issues to be amended on the ground that:

(i) a licence under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli was necessary for the respondent to do business in money lending in Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad;

(b) according to the petitioner, the promissory note in question was not executed at Secunderabad; and

(c) the petitioner was also questioning the capacity of the respondent to lend money under the suit promissory note dt.07-12-2009.

The pleas of the respondent in the counter affidavit in IA.NO.273 of 2020

7. The respondent also filed a counter with counter-claim pointing out that the application lacks bona fides; that it was filed as an after thought to over come the omissions and lacuna in the evidence of the petitioner, that the petitioner has completed his arguments in the suit 3 months prior to the filing of the I.A. and had not raised any objections to the issues originally framed by the Court or asked for framing of additional issues. It is also contended that some of the issues which are now sought to be framed by the petitioner are already covered in the existing issues and others are against the provision of Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. and Order VIII C.P.C. It is also stated that the arguments of the respondent/plaintiff is also completed and at this stage there is no necessity to frame the issues sought for by the petitioner.

8. It is also pointed that the issue whether the plaintiff is a money lender within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli is contradictory to other issue i.e. whether the plaintiff had capacity to lend money referred to in the promissory note dt.07-12-2009, and in fact there was no plea raised in the written statement that respondent/plaintiff is the money lender.

9. A counter-claim was made in I.A.No.273 of 2020 by the respondent/plaintiff seeking framing of two additional issues:

" (1) Whether the defences of the defendant relative to decide the present suit? If yes, what are the defences to be considered as relevant to decide the present suit?

(2) What is the effect of interrogatories and its evidentiary value held between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/ plaintiff?"

The order of the trial court

10. By order dt.27-02-2020, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.273 of 2020 and the counter-claim raised there in by respondent/plaintiff.

11. It o