Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jyothula Deepak vs Smt. Sirigiri Satyavathi on 18 August, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1365 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by
the order and decree, dated 16.06.2022 in I.A.No.242 of 2022
in O.S.No.330 of 2018, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Eluru.
2) Heard Sri D.V. Madhusudhan Rao, learned Counsel
for the Petitioner and Sri Venkaiah Chalasani, learned counsel
for the Respondent and perused the material available on
record.
3) The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the
Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.330 of
2018, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.
4) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent
herein filed the suit in O.S.No.330 of 2018, on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, for recovery of money. The
respondent was examined as PW.1 and her evidence was
closed. At the time of cross examination of PW.1, his previous
counsel not cross examined some crucial points, which are
very essential to prove his case. The matter stands posted to
29.03.2022 for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.242 of 2022, seeking recall PW.1 for purpose of re-cross
examination. The said application was dismissed by order,
dated 16.06.2022 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
on a perusal of Ex.A.1 promissory note, dated 15.09.2015 for
Rs.2,00,000/-, it would be clear that in the printed form
wherein the letters "Rs." Is printed, there is a overwriting of
the figure "1" with the intention of altering the amount from
Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/-. He further contends that the
suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2.00 lakh and Rs.1.50 lakh on
two promissory notes containing the same date i.e.,
15.09.2015. In fact, on a close perusal of the promissory note
for Rs.2.00 lakh, it would be clear that the said promissory
note bears the date 15.07.2015 but to escape from the
limitation the figure "7" was materially altered as "9" and filed
the suit on 14.09.2018 on the last date of limitation.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once
material alteration is there, the document becomes void as per
Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the
availability of statutory presumption in favour of the negotiable
instrument pronote u/Sec.118, heavy burden lies on the
defendant to disprove the same. In that view of the matter, it
is just and essential to give an opportunity to the petitioner to
establish his case. Therefore, he prayed to allow the present
Civil Revision Petition.
7) Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in
the trial Court, the suit is posted for judgment. The petitioner
filed the petition at belated stage. Therefore, he prayed to
dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.
8) Having heard the submission of both the learned
counsel and upon perusal of the material available record, it is
clear that in the accompanying affidavit filed along with
I.A.No.242 of 2022, the petitioner did not reveal any reason in
which counsel did not cross examine PW.1, but vaguely stated
as if on crucial aspects PW.1 was not cross examined. As
contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the suit
is posted for judgment. The petitioner filed the petition at
belated stage. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, there are no merits in the present Civil Revision Petition
and interference into the order, dated 16.06.2022 in
I.A.No.242 of 2022 in O.S.No.330 of 2018, by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, is not warranted.
9) In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
at the stage of admission.
10) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Dt. 18.08.2022.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P.No.1365 of 2022
Dt. 18.08.2022
PGR
