ORDER:

1.

The petitioner/defendant has fi1ed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the docket order dated 07.11.2019 in IA No.204l of 2019 in OS (SR) No.9645 of 2019 (OS No.409 of 2019) on the flle of the lealned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2.

This application in IA No.204l of 20i9 is filed by the plaintiff under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code (fbr shorr 'CPC') to permit him for' filing the present suit u,'ith def-rcit cor,rrr fee of Rs.20,50,4261-, which was paid on 23.09.2019 by condoning the delay and pass any such other orders. This application was I allowed by the XV Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by the said olders,, the defendant has filed this civil revision petition.

3. Notice was served on the respondent/plaintifl'. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinalter referred to as plaintiffand defendant as arrayed in the original sr-rit.

4. a) The brief facts of the case that the plaintiff has filed the original suit against the defendant fbr recovery of an amount ol \

Rs.20,58,00,000/-, based on a loan agreement dated 16.04.2016 stating that tlie plaintilf and the det-endant are known to each other, they' are having good acquaintance. As a proprietor of Sri Balaji Art Printers, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested tbr an amount of Rs.14 crores to meet his financial needs for his busincss requirements. Accordingly, the plaintifl advanced the said amount olRs.14 crores to the defendant during May 2015 to January 20 l6 in fbur instalments by pooling from his own sources, his friends and relatives. On receiving the said mount, the det'endant has executed the loan agreement dated 16.04.2016 on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in favour of the plaintiff at Chandana Brothers Showroom, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, promising to repay the said amount in seven instalments with interest at l2'/o per annutlt.

b) The defendant also issued two post dated cheques each for I{s.7 crores towards security. The det-endant has paid Rs.17.50 lakhs to the plaintiff tou'ards interest, but failed to repay the amount as agreed. The plaintiff also presented the cheques issued A\TRJ by the defendant, they were returned unpaid with.an endorsernent "payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter, on complying the required procedure under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'N.I. Act'), the plaintiff has filed CC No.537 of 20 I 6 I for the offence punishable u/s.138 of N.l. Act on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate's Cour1, Guntur. In the meanrvhile, the def-endant filed a false suit OS No.390 of 2016 a.qainst the plainrill before the Chief Judge, City Civil Couft, Hyderabad fbt reco\/ery of Rs.25,50,000/-. The plaintiff also filed a criminal case befbre the police at S.R. Nagar and a case in Crime No.666 of 2016 lbr the offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468, 411,203, 192 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code (for shor-t 'IPC') was registeled. c) Thus, the plaintiff has filed the original suit for recovery of Rs.i4.58 crores initially on the file of the District Court,, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards court fee, later it was returned for presentation before the appropriate Court on point of territorial jurisdiction. It lvas represented before the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally. In the meanwhile, he has procured the amount for payment ol court fee and paid the entire court fee ol Rs.20,58,4261' on23.Og.2019 and accordingly this application filed u/s.149 of CPC was allowed, through the order impugned dated .tl.2019.

07

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has prefened this revision petition on the following grounds:

a) that the docket order under revision is contrary to law and material on record;

is b) that the learned Additional District Judge not justified in permitting the p