ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article

227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.02.2023 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.988 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of 2016 on the file of the court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

2. The revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.988 of 2022. He is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.16,58,640/- based on two promissory notes both dated 30.10.2013 each executed for principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- agreed to be repaid with interest. The defendant filed written statement denying passing of consideration under the suit promissory notes and stating that on 30.10.2010 the defendant received Rs.5,00,000/- under two promissory notes as consideration and that these two debts were not shown by the plaintiff in his income tax returns and that there was an income tax ride against the plaintiff in the year 2011, due to which, several documents including two promissory notes executed on 30.10.2010 were recovered from the house of the plaintiff and after settlement of that issue the plaintiff came to Srikalahasti, Chittoor District and requested to execute promissory notes dated 30.10.2013 and thus these two promissory notes were scribed by V.Thoyajakshudu a clerk of the defendant. The defendant contended that it is a speculative suit. It is further contended that the suit promissory notes were written at Srikalahasti and the defendant is permanent resident of Srikalahasti and the Court at Kadapa has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further contended that the plaintiff did not give any legal notice demanding payment of suit promissory notes amount prior to filing of the suit and further that on 28.05.2014 the defendant sent Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff through HDFC Bank to the account No.10131000012421 with interest and the defendant has regular source of income by way of rents at the rate of Rs.13,400/- for two rooms and Rs.26,000/- for one room at B.P.Agraharam opposite to Z.P.High School, Srikalahasti and he has a mango garden at Vengalampalli village to an extent of Ac.3-90 cents and is receiving annual usufructs of Rs.4,75,000/- and he has agricultural lands in joint with his brothers and getting Rs.4,00,000/- per annum as his share and with these incomes sources, the defendant used to pay monthly interest regularly to the plaintiff. It is also contended that the plaintiff also lent amount to several lakhs of rupees at Srikalahasti to liquor shops and used to collect monthly interests. The defendant denied that he has only one property as mentioned in I.A.No.1582 of 2016. It is specifically pleaded that the defendant has not only paid the interest, but also paid principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in installments and thus discharged the entire debt due to the plaintiff as on 30.10.2013. He further stated that due to intimacy with the plaintiff, the defendant did not insist for endorsements of payments on the reverse of suit promissory notes and thereby taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff filed the suit basing on these two promissory notes for unlawful gain. The defendant pleaded that there is no cause of action for the suit and denied the averments in the plaint and the relief claimed. The rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is also stated as excessive and erroneous and prayed to dismiss the suit.

3. Later the defendant filed petition in I.A.No.988 of 2022 narrating the points pleaded in his written statement and further stating that the income tax assessee has to pay any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque only and that the suit amount is unaccounted and it cannot be recovered through Court. Further the plaintiff referred to the evidence of P.W.2 by name Nallabothula Subbarayudu. It is also stated that the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden that he paid Rs.10,00,000/- as cash under two promissory notes and hence the defendant claimed that t