IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE present HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1958 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated; 27-7-2022 passed in I.A.No. 164 of 2022 in O.S.No.63 of 2016 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam. Between: 1. Baratam Dhanalakshmi, W/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 55 Residing at Door No. 13-40-51, Nakka Veedhi, Srikakulam Town and District. 2. Baratam Mahesh Kumar, W/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 31 years, residing at Door No.13-40-51, Nakka Veedhi, Srikakulam Town and District. years. ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS AND Rayapureddy Chandravathi,, W/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 53 years. Chit Fund Business, Residing at Door no. 1-16-22, Opposite to Jandala Veedhi, Near Tulasidas Hospital, Srikakulam Town and District. ...respondent/respondent/plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.63 of 2016 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Srikakulam pending the disposal of Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI TV SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI TOTA TEJESWARA RAO The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010520812022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION petition NO: 1958 OF 2022 Between: Baratam Dhanalakshmi, and Others ..PETITIONER(S) AND Rayapureddy Chandravathi Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TVSRI DEVI ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Respondent: 1 .TOTA TEJESWARA RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION petition NO: 1958 OF 2022 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 27.07.2022 in I.A.No.164 of 2022 in O.S.No. 63 of 2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The Petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- under a promissory note dated 09.12.2014 said to have been executed by the petitioners jointly. The defendants filed their written statement disputing the amount under the promissory note and contended that the defendants subscribed the chit transaction conducted by the plaintiff and she was paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. As a consequence, the petitioner claims to have executed two blank promissory notes in favour of the plaintiffand same were being misused and the suit was filed for recovery of amount. It was also pleaded that son of Chandravathi, by name Jayaram had scribed an undertaking given by defendant No.1 in the presence of defendant No.2 and Damodara Sridevi on 02.09.2015 regarding terms of repayment. The original was said to be with plaintiff and defendant was in custody of Xerox document. 3. During the course of cross examination of PW-2, the petitioner’s counsel wg^ not permitted to cross examine on the ground that Xerox copy of undertaking, dated 02.09.2015 was not marked in evidence. Subsequently during the course of evidence of defendants, the undertaking dated 02.09.2015 was marked as Ex.BI. It was in that context, an application was filed by the petitioners to reopen and recall PW-2 for further cross examination. The trial court has dismissed the said application on contest. Hence the present C.R.P is filed. 4. Heard Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. This court of the opinion that there is merit in the claim of the petitioners, since they could not confront before the PW-2 with reference to undertaking given on 02.09.2015 as the said document was not marked in evidence. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the C.R.P. However, the petitioner shall be provided one opportunity to cross examine the PW-2, on which date, if the petitioner did not cross examine, no further opportunity shall be given and trial court proceed to hear arguments n the main suit. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to cross examine the PW-2 to extent of Ex.BI only. 6. Considering the submissions made and considering the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2016, the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within six (06) months. 7. With the above direction, the present Civil Revision Petition is therefore, allowed. No order as to costs. 9 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 5(- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam. 2. One CC to SRI. T V SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] + Three CD Copies RDB TAG HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1958 of 2022 X 2 “I FEB 2025 \ ^ . Current Secwen ^!4£fsPATcy5g;!<^ THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS