APHC010319052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1499/2025 Between: 1. VOGURI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O.LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, RESIDING IN FLAT NO.301, RUSHI ENCLAVE APARTMENTS, ANNAPURNA NAGAR, GORANTIA, GUNTUR RURAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ARADHYULA VENKATA RAMANA RAO, s/o. Sambasiva Rao, 54 years, R/o Door No.8-23-21, Seetharamanagar, Opp to H.P Gas, Guntur City, Guntur 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 tobegs to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dated 03.04.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025 in O.S.No.36 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur, Guntur District IA NO: 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.36 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur, Guntur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 HRRR,J C.R.P.No.1499 of 2025 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NAGESWARA RAO CHAVA 3 HRRR,J C.R.P.No.1499 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.36 of 2021 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur against the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.12,50,000/- along with the interest on the basis of pro-note dated 10.09.2017. 2. The petitioner resisted the suit by filing a written statement, on the ground that he had never borrowed any money from the respondent nor signed any promissory note, much less the promissory note produced by the respondent. In the Course of trial, the respondent was examined as P.W.1. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to summon the Manager of a Hotel New Park, Chennai. This application was filed on the ground that the petitioner was not in Guntur, on the date on which, the pro- note is said to have been executed and that the petitioner was in Chennai. 3. It was further contended that the Manager of the Hotel, in which the petitioner had stayed in Chennai, was a necessary witness to prove his contention. This application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that there was no pleading to that effect in the written statement and on the ground that no suggestion of any nature has been made to the respondent when he was examined as P.W.1. 4 HRRR,J C.R.P.No.1499 of 2025 4. The trial Court after considering both the contentions, dismissed the application, by order dated 03.04.2025. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 5. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthringala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nageswara Rao Chava, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. A perusal of the written statement, filed along with the revision petition, shows that there is no pleading that the petitioner was not in Guntur on the date on which, the suit pro-note is said to have been executed and that he was in Chennai. 7. It is settled law that, there can be no evidence without the pleading of the said fact. There is no pleading, by the petitioner, that he was out of station and was in Chennai on the date of the pro-note. Further, it also appears that no suggestion, of such a nature, was made to the respondent, when he was examined as P.W.1. The purpose of suggestions, as reiterated by any number of judgments, is to put forth the case of the party to the other side so as to enable the other side to rebut the same. 8. In the absence of pleadings and in the absence of any suggestions during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce evidence of facts which have not been pleaded. 9. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in this revision petition. 5 HRRR,J C.R.P.No.1499 of 2025 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date: 26.12.2025 PGT