Unknown vs The Hon'Ble Sri Justice ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3351 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

     Civil Revision Petition Nos.1442 & 1560 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:
       These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning

the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in I.A. Nos.249 and 250

of 2023 in O.S. No. 457 of 2018.

2.     The suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis

of two promissory notes. The defendant has denied the

borrowing of the money. It is also his case that, the said

promissory notes are forged documents. The matter went

to trial.

3.     The defendant/revision petitioner's case that the

plaintiff tried to compel him to compromise the matter in

April, 2021 (approximately three (03) years after filing of

the suit). Thereafter, he lodged a F.I.R. He wanted to bring

to the notice of the Court about registration of the F.I.R.

Hence, the applications were filed to recall the witness

(DW.1) to receive the document and also to reopen the

matter. Both the applications were dismissed, resulting the

filing of these C.R.Ps.

4.     This Court has heard both the learned counsel.
 5.        Learned counsel for the petitioner in all his fairness

submits that his intention was not to delay the trial but

only to bring the fact of the registration of the F.I.R. to the

notice of the Court. Only for this limited purpose, he

wanted the document to be exhibited, witness to be

recalled.

6.        In reply to this, the learned Counsel for the

respondent submits that the suit was filed for recovery of

money and the defense is one of the denial. Therefore, she

submits that this document (F.I.R.) is not very relevant to

decide the core issue namely whether the suit claim is

proved or not on the basis of two promissory notes. She

also relies upon the judgment in Velugu Eswaramma and

another v. Velugu Shoba Rani 1.

7. This Court after hearing the submissions, notices

that there is sufficient strength in what is stated by the

learned counsel for the respondent. The plaintiff will have

to prove that, he had lent money to the defendant under

the two promissory notes and thereafter, the defendant will

have to prove the defenses which are one of the total denial

(2019) 3 ALD 653 and forgery. Therefore, this Court agrees to what is stated

by the learned counsel for the respondent that the

registration of the F.I.R. of an alleged incident that

occurred in April, 2021 will not in any way aid the Trial

Court in coming to the conclusion of the suit. As rightly

pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, there is also an

inordinate delay in bringing this document to the notice of

this Court. Therefore, for both the reasons that the said

document is not relevant to decide the main suit and also

the delay, the Trial Judge dismissed the two applications.

8. This Court agrees with the findings and does not find

any infirmity, in either of the two orders, warranting

interference in the Civil Revision Petitions.

9. Therefore, both the Civil Revision Petitions are

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

pending shall also stand dismissed.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU Date: 11.07.2023 AG/SCH

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1442 & 1560 of 2023

Dated: 11.07.2023 AG/SCH