Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27323 (AP)

SINGAMSETTY VEERA RAGHAVAIAH v. VUCHA SRINIVASA RAO

CRP/1887/2025 · 2025-07-31

Ravi Nath Tilhari

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010386472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. SINGAMSETTY VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SITAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PROPERTIES, R/O. 10 NARAYANADRI APARTMENT, JANDACHETTU CENTER, ENIKEPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. VUCHA SRINIVASA RAO, Chodavaram Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may b pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dated 07 I.A.No.327/2024 in O.S.No.18 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam consequently allowed the I.A.No.327/2024 and pass other orde circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1887/2025 SINGAMSETTY VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SITAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PROPERTIES, R/O. 10-92, FLAT NO.FF NARAYANADRI APARTMENT, JANDACHETTU CENTER, ENIKEPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND VUCHA SRINIVASA RAO, S/o Vallaiah Aged about 46 years, R/o. Chodavaram Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may b pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dated 07-07 I.A.No.327/2024 in O.S.No.18 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam consequently allowed the I.A.No.327/2024 and pass other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI SINGAMSETTY VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SITAIAH, 92, FLAT NO.FF-3, NARAYANADRI APARTMENT, JANDACHETTU CENTER, ...PETITIONER S/o Vallaiah Aged about 46 years, R/o. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be 07- 2025 in I.A.No.327/2024 in O.S.No.18 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam consequently allowed the r or orders as deem fit and proper in the Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of Suit in O.S.No. 18/2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam pending disposal of main Revision Petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1887/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.18 of 2020 for recovery of amount based on promissory note. It appears that the defendant took a stand in his defence that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend the amount. The said suit is pending. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.327 of 2024 for direction to the plaintiff to produce the documents i.e., 1) PAN card of the respondent/plaintiff bearing No.AWVPV8771G 2) Income tax returns of respondent/plaintiff from the financial year 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and the subsequent financial year’s income tax returns till to date there from, 3) Bank Account statements if any of the respondent/plaintiff maintained by the respondent/plaintiff, as on the date of Ex.A1 dated 10.01.2020 & 4) White Ration Card of respondent/plaintiff. The application has been rejected by an order dated 07.07.2025, which is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff had no capacity to lend the money and to prove that, the documents sought to be requisitioned were required. 4. The rejection by the learned trial Court is on the ground that firstly the defendant would have obtained certified copies of the documents as per the procedure and filed those in evidence, and secondly, it is for respondent/plaintiff to establish his case to show that he had financial capacity to lend the money. 5. On consideration of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the view that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case that he had financial capacity to lend the amount, and for the said purpose it is for the plaintiff to adduce what evidence he wants to produce. If the defendant wants to file certain documents to show no financial capacity of plaintiff to lend the money he can file such documentary evidence after obtaining certified copy. But the defendant cannot ask for direction to the plaintiff, to file plaintiff’s documents to prove his case of financial capacity to lend money. Further, during trial, depending upon the evidence on record, issue of financial capacity, is to be tried, subject to the issues involved in the suit. 7. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned for the reasons assigned, which are justified in law. 8. No case is made out for interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 01.08.2025 AG 37 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1887/2025 Dated: 01.08.2025 AG