¥ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ' HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2015 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 06.08.2024 made in I.A.No.232 of 2024 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Nellore and to allow this Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of Justice. Between: Kalki Ranga Reddy, S/o. late Balakrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years R/o Kodambaka, Chennai. ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Namburu Mohan Rao, S/o. Venkama Naidu, Hindu, aged about 70 R/o Brindavanam, Nellore. years ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA 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 O.S.No.205 of 2017, on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Nellore, pending the above Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Gounsiel for the Petitioner : SRI P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI K PALLAVI The Court made the following ORDER : > APHC010387322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] THURSDAY .THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE f PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2015/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Kalki Ranga Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT Namburu Mohan Rao Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent; 1.KPALLAVI The Court made the following: ORDER: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.08.2024 dismissing I.A.No.232 of 2024 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 on the file of the court of IV Additional District Judge, Nellore filed by the defendant under Order XVI rules 1 and 4 CPC to issue summons to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam, High Road Branch, Chennai, to give evidence in respect of the cheques belonging to the petitioner which are as follows: 2 CRP.No.2015 of 2024 1. Record with the bank in relation to presenting of cheques bearing cheque numbers; 541011, 541012, 541013 drawn on ICICI bank, Nungambakkam High Road Branch, Chennai belonging to the defendant (Kalki Ranga Reddy) 2. The details of all the cheque books issued by the ICICI bank, Nungambakkam High Road Branch, Chennai to the defendant (Kalki Ranga Reddy) from 2011 till 2018. The plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioiier for recovery of 3. amount. The defendant filed the written statement stating that four duly signed cheques bearing Nos.541 011 to 541014 were issued as security and three promissory notes were executed by him in relation to a transaction in 2011 between the defendant and the plaintiff through Alluru Srinivasulu Reddy, friend of the defendant, for loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and the entire principal amount was paid, but there is dispute about the amount of interest due to which the suit was filed based on promissory note executed towards unsettled interest and that one such cheques was pressed into service by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant contends that it is necessary for the defendant to prove factum of presentation of those cheques by the plaintiff and that Alluru Srinivasulu Reddy acted in collusion with the plaintiff and coerced the defendant to execute the suit promissory note. 4. The The petition was opposed by filing the counter, respondent/plaintiff did not choose to file a counter, but, in response to the notice of the petition, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff made an endorsement that the subject matter of the suit is promissory note and therefore there is no need to summon the witness as prayed. 5. . .. 3 CRP.No.2015 of 2024 After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petition was filed to delay the proceedings and of the cheques and their presentation for collection 6. mere issuance ipsofacto do not establish the alleged coercion and even if the proposed document is summoned, no purpose would be served. 7. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the purpose of the petition is only to establish the facts pleaded in the written statement and the same can be proved only by summoning the witness to produce the relevant document and give evidence thereof or else the defendant cannot establish his case. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the trial Court had rightly passed the order. 8. 9. The evidence sought to be adduced by summoning the witness There is no need to interfere with 10. can be procured by the defendant, the order. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed giving liberty to seek this remedy afresh if the bank fails to provide the information to the petitioner upon seeking such information from the bank. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. 11. SD/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJASEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. K PALLAVI Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES ssl TAC HIGH COURT DATED;09/01/2025 \ 5 0 5 jur 2e?5 „ ^ , Current Section m ORDER CRP.No.2015 of 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED.