ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.02.2020 in I.A.No.827 of 2019 in OS.No.231 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, whereby the petition filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 r/w 151 CPC by the petitioners/ defendants to issue summons to the concerned officer of the pay and Accounts Section, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, to furnish the service record of PW1-Pichipalli Maheswararao, worked as USL in Weapon Department, Employee No.1852 with information, when he retired from the service and how much amount was paid towards his retirement benefits and what was the mode of payment by the department and to give evidence in the case, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/D6. Inspite of sending notice to the 1st respondent/ plaintiff to the address given by him as in the plaint, the same was returned unserved with the endorsement no such addressee in the door number. Moreover, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff is aware of the Revision Petition since the suit has been stayed by the order of this Court. The 2nd respondent died. Even as per the cause title before the trial Court, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 are shown as not necessary parties, as they are the co-defendants and have not opposed the petition even before the trial Court.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein are referred to as petitioners and the 1st respondent herein is referred as respondent.

4. The petitioners intended to summon the concerned officer of Naval Dockyard for production of the documents referred above and to give evidence with a view to establish that the respondent retired from service long before 2014 and therefore the fact deposed by him that he paid the amount of consideration under the suit promissory note out of the amount received as retirement benefit. The trial Court dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners have not taken in their written statement a plea that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend. It is also observed that the petitioners have approached the Court with this relief at the fag end of the matter and therefore approached the Court with unreasonable delay as the suit is at the stage of arguments.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though there is no plea challenging the financial capacity of the plaintiff to lend the amount, the evidence proposed is required to disprove the case of the plaintiff that the amount of consideration was lent as he stated in his evidence. He further submitted that since the defendants have taken a plea in their written statement that there is no transaction of loan as stated by the plaintiff, it is required for them to establish that there was no passing of consideration and therefore the proposed evidence is necessary to disprove the evidence stated by PW1 about passing of consideration and therefore irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners have taken a plea of no capacity of plaintiff to lend amount, it is necessary to summon the officer for the said purpose. With regard to the delay, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that this petition filed after evidence of the plaintiff and if at all there is any amount of delay, the procedural formalities should not come in the way to place evidence before the Court for complete adjudication of the matter.

6. Insofar as the requirement of a plea in support of evidence is concerned rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner evidence can be placed to disprove the fact. Since the plaintiff has stated in his evidence that he paid the amount of consideration out of his retirement benefits, an opportunity should be given to the defendants to disprove the said fact. As such even in the absence of a specific plea questioning the financial capacity of the