APHC010488542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2610 of 2026 Between: PUKKALLA RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/ YEARS, RESIDING AT D.No.4 VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. KELLA NV PAVAN KUMAR, S/O RAMA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,RESIDING AT D.NO.24 SCHOOLWEAVERS COLONY, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: -None- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2610 of 2026 PUKKALLA RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/o RAMU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.No.4-32, VADA PETA, DOWLAISWARAM VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER AND KELLA NV PAVAN KUMAR, S/O RAMA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 AT D.NO.24-01-96, NEAR NAGARAJU HIGH SCHOOLWEAVERS COLONY, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: NJS, J CRP_2610_2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA RAMU, AGED ABOUT 43 32, VADA PETA, DOWLAISWARAM VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER KELLA NV PAVAN KUMAR, S/O RAMA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 96, NEAR NAGARAJU HIGH ...RESPONDENT 2 NJS, J CRP_2610_2026 The Court made the following order: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 13.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2026 in O.S.No.121 of 2024 on the file of the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Rajamahendravaram. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit filed by respondent / plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.31,70,000/- on the foot of Promissory Note dated 12.08.2023 stated to have been executed by the petitioner. On 10.01.2025, the petitioner / defendant filed a written statement taking a plea inter alia that the alleged suit pronote is rank forged document, fabricated by plaintiff with malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and wrongful gain to him. Subsequently, he filed the above mentioned I.A., to permit him to file Additional Written Statement which came to be dismissed vide Order under Revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order as also material filed along with the Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the application in question without considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submitted that the petitioner wanted to place certain factual aspects regarding the attestor of promissory note, with whom he has disputes, the cases that are pending, clear collusion between the respondent / plaintiff, attestors and scribe which are clearly narrated in the Additional Written Statement for appreciation by the Trial Court. While taking 3 NJS, J CRP_2610_2026 this Court to the specific averments in the Additional Written Statement, the learned counsel made submissions to impress upon the Court that while no prejudice would be caused as the respondent / plaintiff gets an opportunity to examine the defendant’s witnesses in support of the averments made in the Additional Written Statement. However, the learned Trial Court, instead of taking a liberal view in the matter, went wrong in dismissing the subject matter application through the impugned order, that the same is not tenable in Law. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the Revision Petition. 5. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the only point that arises for adjudication is : Whether the Order of the learned Trial Court warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 6. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., in question stated that the Additional Written Statement was sought to be filed to place the relevant information before the Court, which was inadvertently not stated in the Written Statement. Curiously in the Additional Written Statement, it is averred that “the defendant recently obtained certified copies of plaint and list of documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint.” As noted earlier, the petitioner / defendant filed his Written Statement on 10.01.2025, wherein the 1st paragraph reads as follows: 4 NJS, J CRP_2610_2026 “1. The main and material allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the plaint is liable to be dismissed in limini. The allegations made in all para’s of the plaint is are false.” 7. In Paragraph No.4, it is categorically pleaded that he never executed any promissory note and as the suit pronote is rank forged and fabricated one, the defendant is not liable to pay single pie to the plaintiff.” In the said factual scenario, which clearly indicates that written statement was filed after going through the plaint and the documents, therefore the application in question deserves no consideration. 8. In the Additional Written Statement, more particularly, Para No.2, a plea was sought to be taken that the persons referred to therein, colluded with the plaintiff, got fabricated the suit promissory note. That apart, in Para No.4, it is alleged that the said persons illegally occupied the entire flat of the defendant and retained all the equipments i.e., computers, laptops etc., documents pertinent to his consultancy business including customers cheques and relevant papers, and used to threaten him that they will file cases by using the said cheques. To a pointed query of this Court, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint in this regard. Be that as it may. 9. Coming to the order impugned in the present Revision Petition, learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mondira 5 NJS, J CRP_2610_2026 Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh1, was not inclined to allow the application, by holding that the petitioner / defendant wants to introduce new facts and circumstances, that in the absence of any counter claim or set off in the Additional Written Statement, the petition is devoid of merits. 10. This Court in the light of the facts and circumstances stated to supra and the conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court, see no illegality much less perversity in the impugned order. 11. In such view of the matter, the Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 19.09. 2026 BLV 1 AIR 2026 SC 2599 6 NJS, J CRP_2610_2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P.No.2610 of 2026 Dt: 19.09.2026 BLV