APHC010072342026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 479 of Between: Imthiyaz Ahammad R. Sreenivasa Chowdary and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. G. Raj Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. P. V. Mahesh The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 479 of 2026 and R. Sreenivasa Chowdary and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.479 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.01.2026 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.1475 of 2025 in O.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XVI, Rule 4 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the respondent No.1 / the plaintiff to produce the following documents for proper adjudication of the matter: Sl. No. Document 1. Income Tax Returns of the Respondent No.1 / plaintiff for the periods AY (Assessment Year) 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016- 2017 2. Computation of total income and acknowledgment receipts accompanied by the income tax returns for the periods, i.e., AY (Assessment Year) 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016-2017 3. Form-26/AS/AIS or equivalent tax statements for the periods, i.e., AY (Assessment Year) 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016- 2017 4. Balance sheets, Profit & Loss Accounts and Books of Accounts (Cash Book and Ledgers) of the business entity of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff S.V.Drillers for the period of Financial Years 2013-2014; 2014-2015; 2015-2016 5. Bank Accounts statements of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff and that of S.V.Drillers for the period from 01.01.2015 to 13.12.2015 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.479 of 2026 6. Tax Audit Returns / Form 3CB / 3CD for the periods AY(Assessment Year) 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016-2017 7. Partnership deed, Registration and Authorization documents relating to S.V.Drillers 2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner / the defendant No.1. The respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. The respondent No.2 is the respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of Rs.60,11,950/- basing on two promissory notes both dated 11.03.2015 for total amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, allegedly executed by the defendant No.2. 4. The suit was opposed by the defendant No.1 by filing written statement denying the suit transactions and further stating that the plaintiff and this defendant are alien to each other; that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 are not any partners nor are they doing any business together; that the defendant No.2 absconded from Ananthapuramu town and has not been seen for four years; that the defendant No.1 has no knowledge of the whereabouts of the defendant No.2; that on 31.03.2015, the defendant No.2 transferred all his shares and retired from the company Renati Automotives Private Limited and thereby, he is no way concerned with the company or functioning or business transactions of the company either directly or indirectly; that the suit promissory notes were fabricated and brought into existence with the aid of the scribe and the witnesses and mala fide intention to cause humiliation to this defendant to gain money under false pretexts; and that the plaintiff had no such capacity to lend huge unaccounted amounts and moreover there was no need to borrow the amount in the suit promissory notes. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.479 of 2026 5. The petitioner stated that the source of amount said to be lent under the suit promissory notes remains in the exclusive knowledge of the respondent No.1 and the burden of establishing his financial capacity to lend such amount is on him only, however, in order to enable the trial Court to fairly and effectively adjudicate the dispute and to ascertain the financial capacity of the respondent No.1, it is just and necessary to direct him to produce his personal financial records. 6. 6. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff resisted the petition by filing a counter stating that the suit is for recovery of money basing on promissory notes and not based on any accounts; that the respondent has no obligation to submit the documents asked; that the petition was filed to delay the proceedings by abusing process of law and that the averments in the affidavit filed with the petition are false. 7. The respondent No.2 remained ex parte. 8. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition by relying on the decision of this High Court in K. Venkata Krishna Prasad Vs. Peram Sai Swarupa & Another1 and K. Suri Babu Vs. U. Ramesh and others2 wherein both the cases arose out of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was further observed that the above cited decisions held that non- filing of income-tax returns and non-mentioning of transaction in the said returns is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff and that according to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact is to be proved by a person who asserts the same and therefore, it is for the petitioner / the defendant No.1 to prove the financial capacity of the respondent No.1 / the plaintiff. The trial Court further noted that the petitioner failed to state 1 Criminal Appeal No. 981 of 2016, dated 20.12.2016 2 2023(1) ALD (Crl.) 995 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.479 of 2026 any valid reasons to grant relief and therefore, the Court is not inclined to allow the petition. 9. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since it was pleaded in the written statement that the respondent No.1 / the plaintiff had no financial capacity to lend such huge amount, the record sought to be produced before the Court is very much required, but, without appreciating the effort of the petitioner, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition. He further submitted that if the respondent No.1 fails to produce the documents, an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent No.1 about the financial capacity which would support the defence pleaded in the written statement and therefore, it is very much required to allow the petition. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that there is no issue framed on the capacity of the plaintiff and that the respondent No.1 would discharge his burden of establishing the pleaded case in support of the relief claimed in the suit and has no obligation to produce the documents. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 12. Though Order XVI, Rule 6 C.P.C. permits summoning of any person to produce document, Order XI, Rule 3(2) C.P.C. also specifically deals with a situation where one party to the proceedings may seek direction from the Court against another party to the proceedings to produce documents or permit inspection of the documents which are in the custody of that party. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.479 of 2026 Order XVI, Rule 6 C.P.C reads as follows:- “6. Summons to produce document:- Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.” Order XI, Rule 3(2) C.P.C reads as follows: 3.Inspection: (1) xx xx xx (2) Any party to the proceedings may seek directions from the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, for inspection or production of documents by the other party, of which inspection has been refused by such party or documents have not been produced despite issuance of a notice to produce.” 13. But, the petitioner filed the application under Order XVI, Rule 4 C.P.C. which deals with a different aspect, i.e., procedure where insufficient sum paid. Therefore, it has no relevance. The trial Court erroneously applied the above cited decisions which were decided in the light of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, where the burden of proof on complainant and accused are different from one another and further, the degree of proof required in a civil case and a criminal case are different. Since the defendant No.1 has taken pleading that the plaintiff had no such capacity to lend huge unaccounted amount, it is for the defendant 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.479 of 2026 No.1 to prove the same. In that context, the petitioner intended to bring this evidence to substantiate his case. 14. However, since Order XI, Rule 3(2) C.P.C. which specifically deals with a relief sought by the petitioner, recourse must be taken even under Order XVI, Rule 6 C.P.C., though not Order XVI, Rule 4 C.P.C., because the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of issuance of prior notice to the other party to produce the document required. It is only if the other party refuses to produce those documents despite issuance of a notice to produce the relief sought under Order XI, Rule 3 (2) C.P.C. can be granted. Moreover, it is also to be seen whether such documents are in the actual custody of the person sought to be directed to produce them. Of course, in the present case, the respondent No.1 / the plaintiff has not disputed the custody of these documents in the counter filed by him. As has been noted, since no prior notice has been given, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Though, the reason given by the trial Court is not legal and adequate, the result in the order dismissing the petition needs no interference. 15. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to follow the procedure contemplated under Order XI, Rule 3(2) C.P.C., if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 07.04.2026 NSM / RAR