APHC010381272024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1982/2024 Between: 1. K SURYANARAYANA, S/O. K. ASWATHAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC PHARMACY, RESIDING AT NO. 15, VIDYAPURA MAIN ROAD, BALAJI NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 85, KARNATAKA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. J CHALAPATI, S/o. Late Sanjeevappa, aged 54 years, Occ Finance Business, Kammapalyam Street, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Anantapuram 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 to being aggrieved by the Order dt.18.07.2024 passed in I.A No.66 of 2024 in O.S. No.47 of 2015 on the file of the court of Learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 OS No. 47 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PRAKASH C 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Plaintiff in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 18.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.66 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur. 2. Petitioner/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.47 of 2015 against the respondent/defendant for recovery of amount. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs on 10.12.2013 and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. On 05.07.2014, the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs towards interest. Subsequently, on 09.12.2014, the defendant once again acknowledged the liability to repay the principal sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum and executed a Kararu agreement to that effect. However, the defendant failed to pay the further interest and the principal amount. Upon demand by the plaintiff, the defendant issued six post-dated cheques amounting to Rs. 18.00 lakhs in favour of the plaintiff and assured that the balance amount of Rs. 12.00 lakhs, along with interest at 24% per annum, would be paid in the month of February 2015. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to make any further payments. 4. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement, duly denying the allegations made in the plaint. He further contended that the loan amount was 4 discharged in the presence of village elders in the month of April and that, as on the date of filing of the suit, no amount was due to the plaintiff. 5. During the trial, the petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. The matter was posted for further evidence on 22.01.2024. However, on that day, the witnesses were not available, and the petitioner/plaintiff failed to inform the same to his counsel and as such, the trial Court imposed costs of Rs.150/-. Consequently, costs were not paid, and the petitioner/plaintiff's evidence was closed on 22.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 66 of 2024 in O.S. No. 47 of 2015 seeking to reopen his side evidence to enable him to adduce further evidence. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was stated that the petitioner is required to examine witnesses to prove the acknowledgment of debt executed by the defendant on 09.12.2014. He also needs to examine witnesses to establish the transactions that took place between the petitioner and the defendant. Further, the petitioner/plaintiff intends to examine the bank officials of the State Bank of India (formerly State Bank of Hyderabad), Yanamalapalli Branch, Puttaparthi, and the Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Kothacheruvu, where the cheques in question were drawn. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to examine not only the attesting witnesses to the agreement but also those from whom he borrowed the amounts, to establish the financial transactions between himself and the defendant. 5 7. The respondent/defendant filed a counter, denying the allegations made in the affidavit. He further stated that no amount was paid by him through the bank, and the alleged bank account is not in his name. Therefore, the question of any transfer of amount does not arise. The defendant specifically denied having transferred any amount and alleged that the petitioner/plaintiff fabricated the bank statement. He further stated that the petitioner/plaintiff filed several interlocutory applications to drag on the suit proceedings. 8. The trial Court dismissed the application on the grounds that, although the petitioner sought to adduce further evidence by examining multiple witnesses, including bank officials and others from whom he borrowed money, he failed to file chief affidavits for any of these witnesses along with I.A. No. 66 of 2024, indicating an attempt to delay the suit. Furthermore, despite filing the suit in 2015 basing on photocopies of six alleged post-dated cheques, the petitioner never produced the original cheques. Although issues were framed on 24.07.2017, the petitioner showed no interest in commencing the trial until 21.07.2023. Even after being granted ample time for further evidence, he made no effort to do so and instead filed the present petition, merely asserting that he has a good case and intends to examine many witnesses. The trial court thus concluded that the petitioner is habitually filing such applications to prolong the proceedings rather than seeking disposal on merits and accordingly dismissed the interlocutory application. 6 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 18.07.2024 in I.A.No.66 of 2024, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 10. This Court, by order dated 29.10.2024, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.47 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 12. On perusal of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the trial Court, it is evident that the petitioner/plaintiff, filed the suit against the respondent/ defendant for recovery of amount with interest based on six post dated cheques with different dates. It is no doubt true that the suit was filed in the year 2015 and that there was delay on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in adducing evidence. The trial court, after noting his conduct, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to file the chief affidavits of witnesses along with the interlocutory application. 13. However, it is equally well settled that the primary duty of the Court is to advance the cause of justice rather than to terminate proceedings on technicalities. The right of a party to lead relevant evidence cannot be lightly denied, particularly when such evidence is essential for a just and fair adjudication of the dispute. 7 14. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. The petitioner’s request to summon witnesses to prove the acknowledgment dated 09.12.2014 and to examine bank officials in relation to the cheques in question can hardly be said to be either irrelevant or unnecessary. 15. If the application is rejected, it may result in the petitioner being deprived of the opportunity to prove his case. Moreover, the Court itself may be left without the benefit of crucial material evidence required to decide the real controversy between the parties. 16. The trial court’s apprehension that the petitioner might be attempting to delay proceedings can be adequately addressed by imposing reasonable conditions. Denial of an opportunity to lead evidence would result in greater prejudice than any inconvenience caused by the reopening of evidence. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in I.A.No.66 of 2024 cannot be sustained. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 18.07.2024 in I.A.No.66 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur on condition of payment of Rs.3,000/- to the defendant within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The matter is reopened for a limited purpose of examining the petitioner/plaintiff’s side witnesses and the trial Court shall permit the 8 petitioner to examine the witnesses as expeditiously as possible. In case the trial Court finds that the petitioner/plaintiff is trying to drag on the matter, the trial Court can proceed with O.S.No.47 of 2015, without granting further adjournments. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.09.2025 KA 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1982/2024 Date: 25.09.2025 KA 10