THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI C.R.P.NOS. 3814 AND 3858 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, dated 06.08.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2025 and I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2017.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the Suit filed for recovery of money. The written statement was filed on 06.04.2018. The petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2025 under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to issue summons to the witnesses mentioned in the list to secure their attendance and examination and I.A.No.6 of 2025 is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to recall the DW1 for further evidence with reference to the Compact Disk (CD) submitted by the defendant and to pass such other order or orders. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 06.08.2025 and the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the same.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the Suit are that the plaintiff claimed that he and the defendant were well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.12.2014 at Khammam, with a promise to repay the said sum with interest @ 24% per annum and executed a promissory note to this effect and that the defendant failed to pay the principal amount and also interest thereon and therefore, a suit was filed for a total amount of Rs.34,29,333/-. The defendant, in her written statement denied the averments in the plaint and stated that the defendant had never borrowed the alleged sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on 18.12.2014 and had also denied execution of the alleged promissory note. In the written statement, the details of other transactions with the plaintiff are also recited.

4. In I.A.No.5 of 2025, the petitioner has stated that there was a conversation between the plaintiff and his daughter- in-law with the husband of the petitioner and that the said conversation is being submitted in the form of an audio CD along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the petitioner also wanted to file certain documents and mark them as evidence and for the said purpose, she submitted that the plaintiff and his daughter-in-

law are required to be summoned as witnesses.

5. The I.A.No.6 of 2025 was filed seeking recall of DW1 for further evidence with reference to the CD, which was already received by the Court and kept in record. The CD allegedly contains the conversation between the plaintiff, his daughter-in-

law and the husband of the petitioner.

6. The trial Court, vide separate orders dated

06.08.2025, has observed that the plaintiff side evidence was closed long back and that thereafter, DWs1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and these applications are filed to summon the proposed witnesses to give their evidence at this juncture and it was also observed that the husband of the petitioner/defendant was examined as DW2 and in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that the suit transaction has nothing to do with the transaction between himself, son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and that the petitioner also admitted her signature on the suit promissory note and there is no whisper in the written statement filed by the defendant about the recording of any conversation and converting the same into CD and therefore, on the ground that in the absence of pleading, any amount of oral or documentary evidence cannot be looked into and cannot be taken into consideration, both I.A.No.5 of 2025 and I.A.No.6 of 2025 were dismissed and the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the said applications.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance