S BALAJI KUMAR Vs. K MURALIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.