SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 4483

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
Voleti Shiva Kameswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
K. Sekhar Reddy – Respondent
CRP 250/2026



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.250 OF 2026

DATE OF ORDER: 30.01.2026

Between:

Voleti Shiva Kameswara Rao.

Petitioner/defendant.

AND

K.Sekhar Reddy.

Respondent/plaintiff.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 24.10.2025 in

I.A.No.281 of 2023 (Old I.A.No.173 of 2020) in O.S.No.24 of

2023 (Old O.S.No.1204 of 2016) passed by the learned Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District at

Kushaiguda.

##PAGE2##

2

3. Respondent/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit in

O.S.No.24 of 2023 (new) against the petitioner/defendant for

recovery of money basing on the pronote dated 11.11.2013.

During the pendency of the said suit, petitioner herein has filed an

application under Order XVI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 vide I.A.No.281 of 2023 with a request to

summon the Medical Officer, Mandal Primary Health Center,

Bhattiprolu, Guntur District, along with the Attendance Register

pertaining to the year November, 2013 contending that the

petitioner being a Government Doctor, on the alleged date i.e.,

11.11.2013, he is discharging his duties at Mandal Primary

Health Center, Bhattiprolu. Therefore, the question of execution

of promissory note in favour of the respondent/plaintiff at Uppal,

Hyderabad, does not arise. Respondent/plaintiff has created the

said document. Petitioner obtained the attendance certificate and

marked the same as Ex.B.2 on his behalf. Respondent/plaintiff is

disputing Ex.B.2 duty certificate and opposing the contention of

the petitioner that the pronote was created by him. Therefore, he

##PAGE3##

3

seeks to summon the Medical Officer, Mandal Primary Health

Center, Bhattiprolu, Guntur District, to depose with regard to the

aforesaid facts.

4. Respondent/plaintiff has not filed counter opposing the said

petition. However, vide the impugned order dated 24.10.2025,

learned trial Court dismissed the said application observing that

the said suit was filed in the year 2016, written statement was

filed on 16.06.2017 and PWs.1 to 3 were cross-examined

voluminously. DW.1 completed his evidence long back in the

year 2020 itself. The matter was posted for further evidence on

the defendant side. Petitioner/defendant has already filed Ex.B.2

duty certificate. Therefore, there is no need to summon the

Medical Officer as sought by the petitioner herein.

5. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that he

has not executed the said pronote dated 11.11.2013 in favour of

the respondent/plaintiff. In the written statement, he has

specifically contended that one Vellaturi Jithendra and Vellaturi

##PAGE4##

4

Hemanth are brothers and close relatives to the petitioner.

Petitioner’s wife died due to ill-health. At the time of her

treatment in need of money, petitioner borrowed an amount of

Rs.60,000/- from the said Jithendra. Thus, he is disputing the

execution of the said pronote in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

He has specifically pleaded that the said facts in the written

statement. However, he has already obtained Ex.B.2 duty

certificate, dated 19.11.2018 issued by the Medical Officer,

Bhattiprolu, Guntur District.

6. It is the specific contention of the respondent that Ex.B.2

duty certificate is created by the petitioner and petitioner seeks to

summon the Medical Officer only to prove the said document.

However, the said Medical Officer will help the petitioner by

deposing false, as he is his colleague.

7. Perusal of record would reveal that respondent filed the

aforesaid suit in the year 2016. Upon formation of the new

districts, it was transferred to the learned trial Court and

##PAGE5##

5

renumbered as O.S.No.24 of 2023 (new). The evidence of PW.3

was completed in the year 2019. Even then, he filed the present

application in the year 2020 and the same was re-numbered as

I.A.No.281 of 2023.

8. Perusal of record inclu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top