THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3585 OF 2025 Mr. S.Ram Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 11.02.2025 in I.A.No.1525 of 2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2022 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally, filed by the petitioners/defendants in the suit for sending the suit Promissory Note to Government Mint, Nasik for examination of the revenue stamp.

2. The petitioners before this Court are the defendants in the said suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants has made his submissions. According to counsel, the defendants have disputed the Promissory Note at all relevant points of time. Counsel submits that the Promissory Note form the basis of the suit filed for recovery of money. Counsel further submits that contrary to the recording in the impugned order, the defendants also took the point of the Promissory Note being a disputed document in the written statement.

4. I have considered the reasons given by the Trial Court for dismissing the petitioners I.A. for sending the suit Promissory Note to Government Mint, Nasik for examination of the revenue stamp. The said I.A. was filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the defendants in the written statement failed to take the plea of the revenue stamp affixed on the Promissory Note being forged or fabricated. The impugned order further records that the issues were framed and PW1 was partly cross-examined and at this stage the petitioners/defendants filed the petition to forward the Promissory Note to Government Mint. The Trial Court reiterates that there is no reference of the revenue stamp being used on Ex.A1 Promissory Note in the written statement filed by the defendants in 2017 or as to the date on which the defendants observed that the revenue stamp was affixed on the Promissory Note.

6. This Court does not find any error in the reasons given by the Trial Court. Admittedly, the suit was filed in 2016 and the petitioners filed their written statement of the suit on 11.10.2017. The defendants filed the I.A in 2024 that is after seven years of filing of the written statement. Contrary to the submissions made, the relevant paragraph of the written statement which was shown to the Court, does not contain any specific pleading with regard to the revenue stamp in the Promissory Note. Hence, admittedly, the I.A was filed at a belated stage and on a plea which does not find any mention in the written statement. As rightly recorded by the Trial Court, the affidavit does not also mention as to when the defendants came to know of the revenue stamp of 2016 on the Promissory Note. The Trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A. In any event, nothing prevents the petitioners/defendants from taking all points in the trial in the suit. There is no case for filing of CRP from the impugned order.

7. C.R.P.No.3585 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 06.11.2025

SUS