##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:16927 APHC010072272026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six

Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi

Civil Revision Petition No: 478 of 2026 Between:

Imthiyaz Ahammad ...Petitioner and

R. Sreenivasa Chowdary and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:

1. G. Raj Kumar Counsel for the respondents:

1. P. V. Mahesh The Court made the following:

2 BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:16927

C.R.P.No.478 of 2026

ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 08.01.2026, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.1474 of 2025 in O.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XVI, Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the Registrar of Companies, Vijayawada (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) to send the true copies of the following documents: for the

period specified between 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016.

2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner / the defendant No.1. The respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1 / the plaintiff. The respondent

No.2 is the respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of Rs.60,11,950/- basing on two promissory notes both dated

3 BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:16927

C.R.P.No.478 of 2026

11.03.2015, for total amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, allegedly executed by the defendant No.2.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendant No.1 by filing written statement denying the suit transactions and further stating that the plaintiff and this defendant are alien to each other; that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 are not any partners nor are they doing any business together; that the defendant No.2 absconded from Ananthapuramu town and has not been seen for four years; that the defendant No.1 has no knowledge of the whereabouts of the defendant No.2; that on 31.01.2015, the defendant No.2 transferred all his shares and retired from the company Renati Automotives Private Limited and thereby, he is no way concerned with the company or functioning or business transactions of the company either directly or indirectly; that the suit promissory notes were fabricated and brought into existence with the aid of the scribe and the witnesses and mala fide intention to cause humiliation to this defendant to gain money under false pretexts; and that the plaintiff had no such capacity to lend huge unaccounted amounts and moreover there was no need to borrow the amount in the

suit promissory notes.

5. The petitioner stated that the alleged suit promissory notes dated 11.03.2021 said to have been executed by the respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2 showing him as the Managing Partner of the Renati Automotives Private Limited and therefore, the dispute entirely resolves around that date, since the defendant No.2 had ceased to be a director well before the date of the suit promissory notes. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the documents mentioned in the above list are

material for the purpose of adjudication of the suit on merits.

6. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff stating that the application is not maintainable as there

4 BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:16927

C.R.P.No.478 of 2026

are no pleadings or issue on the aspects raised by the petitioner / defendant No.1; that the petitioner can obtain certified copies and that

the averments in the petition are false and have no merit.

7. The respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2 remained ex parte.

8. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner / defendant No.1 contended that the documents brought down cessation of ended directorship of the defendant No.2, whereas the written statement of the petitioner stated that on 31.01.2015, the defendant No.2 transferred a