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.

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 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 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 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 reco