PAILA REGARAO Vs. PRAGADA RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful defendant feeling aggrieved by order, dtd. 16/10/2019, passed in I.A.No.217 of 2019 in O.S.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle,

(2.) Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant for convenience and clarity.

(3.) The facts that lead to filing of this revision by the revision petitioner/defendant, in brief, are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,15,400.00 and subsequent interest thereon basing on a promissory note, dtd. 30/12/2013. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and specifically pleading that the suit promissory note is fabricated. While so, the plaintiff, after adducing his evidence as PW1, filed the chief affidavit of PW2 who is one of the attestors of exhibit A1, suit promissory note. Thereafter, the plaintiff found that there are certain clerical and typographical mistakes in the evidence of PW2. In view of the ambiguity on account of mistakes occurred in the chief affidavit of PW2, the plaintiff intended to adduce evidence of Paila Sanyasi Rao who is one of the attestors of suit pronote, exhibit A1, for better appreciation of his case after eschewing his earlier evidence filed in the form of affidavit. For that purpose, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.217 of 2019 under Sec. 151 CPC seeking to permit him to adduce of the evidence of Paila Sanyasi Rao in the correct form, as he is an essential witness.