ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019 in I.A.No.2081 of 2018 in O.S.No.100 of 2014, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, the said application filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) under Order XVI Rule 7A read with Section 151 CPC seeking to summon the Branch Manager of Karnataka Bank Limited to give his evidence, was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.100 of 2014 against the respondents-defednants for recovery of money. While so, when the matter was posted for trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2081 of 2018 under Order XVI Rule 7A read with Section 151 CPC seeking to summon the Branch Manager of Karnataka Bank Limited to give his evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner stated that he is having account in Karnataka Bank Limited. The petitioner paid Rs.4 lakhs by way of three cheques to late late Vemuri Venkateswar Rao, who is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 towards part sale consideration and the said transaction was not materialized. While refunding the said amount, the said Venkateswar Rao issued a cheque for Rs.8 lakhs in favour of the petitioner and on presentation of the same, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money for Rs.12,26,133/- and in order to prove the transaction, evidence of the Bank Manager was found essential. Hence, an application was filed to summon the Bank Manager for the purpose of giving evidence. The respondents resisted the said application by filing counter. They stated that no document was filed by the petitioner that he paid the amounts to late Vemuri Venkateswar Rao through cheques and without such documents, summoning of the Bank Manager would not serve any purpose. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the said application through the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 holding that under Section

146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’), the Court shall on production of bank’s slip or memo can be received in evidence and marked through the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and by allowing the application, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the respondents. Learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the petitioner can exhibit the memos and the bank statements by placing reliance on Section 146 of the Act and that the petitioner failed to prove the advancement of amounts by way of cheques to late Vemuri Venkateswar Rao and learned counsel prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. A perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and he filed I.A.No.104 of 2019 earlier for the purpose of marking his bank statement and said application was allowed on 15.04.019. The present application is filed to summon the Bank Manager for the purpose of marking the bank transactions. However, Section 146 of the Act mandates that the Court shall on production of bank’s slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved. The trial Court had rightly held that in view of the presumption provided under Section 146 of Act, it is not necessary to prove the same once again by summoning the Bank Manager. However, in the facts and circumstances, by allowing the applicati