1 VS,J C.R.P.No.2021 of 2023 APHC010401672023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2021/2023 Between: 1. MENTA VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-5-108, LAKSHMIPURAM, STONEHOUSE PET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONDA SATYANARAYANA, S/o. late Venkata Narayana, Aged about 63 years, R/o. Lakshmipunun, Stonehouse Pet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore 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 be pleased toaggrieved by the order passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.N0.1502023 in O.S.No.42/2020 dated.05.07.2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.42/2020 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the Revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2021 of 2023 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P RAJESH BABU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2021 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.154 of 2023 in O.S.No.42 of 2020, whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the Income Tax Officer, ward-1, Nellore for producing tax returns of the respondent/plaintiff pertaining to assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,32,609/- from the petitioner/defendant along with subsequent interest. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.154 of 2023 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, to summon the income tax officer, ward-1, Nellore for producing tax returns of the respondent/plaintiff pertaining to assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 as he admitted during his cross examination that he has shown the subject transaction with the petitioner/defendant in his income tax returns. The trial Court, while relying on various judgments, passed a docket order in I.A.No.154 of 2023 on 05.07.2023 dismissing the said application by observing that non-filing of income tax returns would not make any difference. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.154 of 2023 in O.S.No.42 of 2020 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, solely relying on a statement made by the respondent/plaintiff during his cross examination that he has shown the amount lent to the petitioner/defendant in his income tax returns. As such, it would be relevant to extract the appropriate portion of the cross examination of the respondent/plaintiff: 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2021 of 2023 “…It is true I am Income Tax Assessee. The suit transaction had been taken at my house. I lend the cash only under suit promissory note consisting Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- notes. I don’t know as per Section 269 SS of Income Tax no cash transaction is valid. I have showed the defendant transaction in Income Tax Returns. It is not true to say that I have no financial capacity to lend the suit amount…” 5. It can be observed from the above that the respondent/plaintiff himself has admitted that the transaction that is alleged to have taken place between himself and the petitioner/defendant was shown in his income tax returns. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner/defendant that no such transaction, as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff, took place between them and that the income tax returns of the respondent/plaintiff would enable him to establish whether such alleged transaction took place in between the petitioner and the respondent. 6. When it is admitted by the respondent/plaintiff in his cross examination that he has shown the transaction that took place between him and the petitioner/defendant in his income tax returns and when it was specifically contended by the petitioner/defendant that the said piece of evidence would establish his case that the said transaction has not taken place, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the mere reason that such documents would not make much difference. It is to be noted that if the alleged transaction is reflected in the documents produced, it would support the case of the respondent/plaintiff and strengthen his claim against the petitioner/defendant. However, even if no such transaction is found in the respondent’s income tax returns, that omission by itself cannot be taken as conclusive proof that the transaction did not occur. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if income tax returns are produced in the trial Court. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2021 of 2023 7. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.154 of 2023 in O.S.No.42 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore is hereby set-aside and consequentially, the trial Court shall summon the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Nellore to produce the documents pertaining to income tax returns of the respondent/plaintiff for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:30.10.2025 Gss