IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ANTi TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i 4.F . Ar f/Cm o PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1042 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2025, passed in I.A. 289 of 2024 in O.S. No. 17 of 2018 on the file of the IT'^ Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. Between: G Brahmananda Reddy, S/o. G. Linga Reddy, Aged 46 years, R/o. MIG 194, APHB Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/ Petitioner/Defendant AND B Govardhana Reddy, S/o. B. Hanumantha Reddy, Aged 54 years, R/o. H. No. 20/207, Venkannapeta, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff lA^O: 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 17 of 2018 on the file of Hon’ble II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni during the pendency of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. M K Viswanath Naidu Courisel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: APHC6ipi89462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0ES [3311] Tuesday, the Twenty Nineth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1042 of 2025 Between: G Brahmananda Reddy ...petitioner and B Govardhana Reddy ...respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M KVIswanath Naidu ^e Court made the following: ’.•o 2 C.R.P.No.1042 of 2025 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 07.03.2025 dismissing I.A.No.289 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge. Kurnool at Adoni, filed by the defendant under Order XIV, rule 2 (2) of C.P.C. to frame the following additional issues: i. whether the plaintiff got source of income from the photographer business and agricultural net annul (sic annual income) of Rs.1,50,000/- is supported the consideration of promissory notes are legal (sic legally) valid or not? ii. Whether the plaintiff got financial capacity is there or not? According to his evidence, iii. Whether the promissory notes are purposes of security not? come or 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner based on six promissory notes for recovery of amount. The suit resisted by the defendant by filing written statement denying the allegations of borrowing the amounts and executing the said promissory notes. It is specifically pleaded that the promissory notes were not supported by consideration and that they were nominally executed towards security for the debt of others. It is also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation and that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. N was 3 C.R.P.No.1042 of 2025 3 After completion of evidence of the plaintiff, when the suit posted for the evidence of the defendant, the application in I.A.No.289 of 2024 was filed stating that PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that his annual net income as a photographer and agriculturist is about Rs.1,50,000/-. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent questioning the maintainability of the petition stating that the submissions in the petition are all inventory and imaginary and further stating that the suit was posted for evidence of defendant and the petition is not maintainable at this stage without due evidence of the defendant. was 4 .After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed th holding that the issues already framed cover the aspects of limitation, jurisdiction, besides the issue ‘whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration’ and that all these issues covered the pleadings taken in the written statement and there is no pleading in the written statement questioning the financial position of the plaintiff to lend such huge amount to the defendant and that the aspect of capacity of plaintiff was brought in evidence for the first time without any plea in support thereof in the written statement. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed the revision petition. nofitinri 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless there are specific separate issues framed as proposed in the petition, the trial court may not answer the very crucial aspects required to be proved to defend the suit. • 4 C.R.P.No,1042 of 2025 As can be seen from the proposed issues, issues at serial Nos.1 and 2 are interwoven relating to financial capacity of the plaintiff to lend the amount covered by the suit promissory notes. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no separate plea taken challenging the financial capacity of the plaintiff and therefore no such separate issue is required. 6. Insofar as issue at serial No.3 is concerned, the issue already framed regarding each promissory note, i.e., ‘whether suit promissory note is true valid and supported by consideration’, requires to answer the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement that the suit promissory notes are nominally executed towards security for the debt of others. Moreover, the trial Court is at liberty to frame any additional issues at any stage of the suit, if required. 7. As such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. It is made clear that the trial Court has to answer all the pleas raised in the written statemeht: while answering the issues already framed or by Xframing additional issues, if so required, if it feels necessary and required. 8. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / .WWv SECTION OFFH //TRUE COPY// I- CER To, 1. The IT'^ Additional District Judge, Adoni, Kurnool district 2. One CC to Sri. M K Viswanath Naidu Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1042 of 2025 •o DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION