HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1797 of 2024

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. Harikishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.119 of 2024 in O.S.No.123 of 2016, dated 16.04.2024, wherein, the said petition filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the petitioner/defendant side evidence by setting aside the order passed on 13.03.2024 and give chance to the petitioner/defendant to contest the matter, has been dismissed.

3. The background facts are that the suit in O.S.No.123 of 2016 was filed for recovery of Rs.7,84,500/- along with interest on the basis of promissory notes dated 10.09.2013 and 09.09.2015 from the defendant. The suit claim arose from monetary transactions involving wholesale and retail sale of textiles wherein the petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as hand loan from the respondent herein on 10.09.2013 by executing a promissory note under Ex.A1. Thereafter, the petitioner borrowed another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 09.09.2015 from the respondent and executed another promissory note under Ex.A2. Then, there was failure to par the borrowed amount leading to filing of the suit.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the suit claim by filing written statement. After closure of evidence of both the parties, when the matter was posted for arguments of petitioner/defendant, an additional issue has been framed but no opportunity was given to cross examine the respondent/plaintiff on said issue. When the petition vide I.A.No.18 of 2024 to recall PW1 for cross examination on additional issue was dismissed, a Civil Revision Petition i.e. CRP No.1195 of 2024 was preferred. In that regard, a memo was filed before the Trial Court, however, on 16.02.2024, the matter was posted for petitioner/ defendant evidence and thereafter, conditionally posted on 13.03.2024. At that time, the petitioner fell ill with fever and was unable to attend the Court and therefore, the petitioner’s evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. On that, the petition under revision was filed to reopen the petitioner/defendant side evidence to contest the matter on the additional issue. On the ground that in spite of giving number of adjournments, the petitioner herein failed to adduce evidence and therefore, in the face of the time frame set up by this Court to dispose of the matter within three months, the petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. While dismissing the petition, it is also held that no document is filed by the petitioner herein to show ill health and no document is filed to show that the respondent is doing money lending business. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Trial Court allowed the petition to frame additional issue but has failed to give opportunity to cross examine PW1 and the same was dismissed on 16.02.2024. Aggrieved by the same, CRP No.1195 of 2024 was filed. On 13.03.2024, when the case was posted for evidence of the petitioner, as the petitioner was suffering from fever and could not attend the Court, the evidence was closed. It is pleaded that fair chance is not given to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner which is violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, it is pleaded that there is a stay of all further proceedings and the learned Judge ought not to have closed the evidence of the petitioner. At that stage, another CRP No.1004 of 2024 was filed and the same is pending to refer the promissory notes to an expert opinion. For the aforementioned reasons, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. Perusal of the docket proceedings in CRP No.1004 of 2024 shows that an interim stay of all further proceedings