HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.2346 of 2012
4-10-2012
S. Balaji Kumar
K. Muralidhar
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
Counsel for petitioner : Sri Chetluru Sreenivas
Counsel for respondent : Sri K. Srinivas
?CASES REFERRED:
Nil
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 20-4-2012 in
I.A.No.109/2011 in O.S.No.12/2009 on the file of the learned II Additional
District Judge, Hindupur.
The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for
recovery of certain amount on the foot of a promissory note. Initially, the
respondent filed a Memo to permit him to reserve his right to examine his side
witnesses after the defendant leads his evidence. This request was however
rejected by the lower Court. After closure of the trial and when the suit was
coming up for arguments, the respondent has filed the above noted I.A. to reopen
the suit for examining one of the attestors of the suit pronote. This
application was allowed by the lower Court.
Upon considering the reasons assigned by the lower Court, I am of the
opinion that it has exercised sound discretion in allowing the application of
the respondent. The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for
reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of
the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit
him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time
when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court
is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it.
In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the
evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be
shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the
order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one
of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, interim order dated 13-6-2012 is vacated and CRPMP No.3126 of
2012 is diposed of as infructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 4-10-2012
