HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 of 2025

Between:

Velagapudi Kishore Kumar

..... PETITIONER

AND

Boppana Venkata Naga Krishna

.....RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.03.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No

fair copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 of 2025 % 05.03.2025 # Velagapudi Kishore Kumar ….Petitioner Versus $ Boppana Venkata Naga Krishna ....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy ^ Counsel for respondent : ---

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. (1971) 1 SCC 396

2. 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2431

3. Misc.Petition No.3093/2018 HC of Rajastan

4. 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 74 5. 2019 SCC OnLine AP 72

6. (2017) 3 ALD 579

7. (2017) 3 ALT (Cri) 203 (A.P)

8. 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 562

9. (2014) 1 ALT 636

10. CRP.2680 of 2023, decided on

5.12.2023, APHC, Amaravathi

11. 2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB)

12. 2024 (1) ALT 173 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant challenging the Order dated 26.11.2024 in I.A.No.700 of 2024 in O.S.No.1141 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff. He filed O.S.No.1141 of 2019 for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.03.2018 for business purposes and family necessities and a promissory note in the presence of the scribe and attesters was executed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @24% per annum with compound interest either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff had been constantly approaching the defendant for repayment. Towards part payment of the principal and interest, the defendant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.03.2019 and as per the instructions of the defendant, the said cheque was presented for clearance on 18.05.2019, but the same was returned on 20.05.2019 with a memo for the reason of ‘funds insufficient’. The defendant did not repay and therefore the suit was filed for an amount of Rs.15,75,400/- with subsequent interest @24%

per annum against the defendant.

4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant submitted that he never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note nor issued the cheque. The defendant had no necessity to borrow such a huge amount as he was having sufficient bank balance. There were some disputes which arose amongst the defendant, his father and brother and in connection therewith, they, in connivance with the plaintiff got fraudulently pressed into service the alleged promissory note and cheque which were never executed or issued by the defendant. There was no relationship of creditor and debtor between the plaintiff and the defendant and there was no legally enforceable debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant.

5. In the said suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.700 of 2024 under Section

45 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 151 CPC to send the promissory note dated 20.03.2018 to the Work Manager Revenue Stamp Examiner, Nasik, Maharashtra for examination and find out the period in which the revenue stamp worth Rs.1/- affixed on the suit printed promissory note, and the age of the ink in th