B HARIKISHAN RAO Vs. A VENKATESHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 23-OS-2006 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2006 in O.S.No.25 of 2005 as well as the consequential orders dated 27-06-2006, viz., the docket order in I.A.No. 182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.25 of 2005, by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.

(2.) The brief facts that are required for disposal of this revision are as follows: - The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant. The respondent instituted a suit in O.S.No.25 of 2005 against the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy basing on a promissory note. It is stated that on 12-06-2006 after completion of the ^evidence of the plaintiff, the Court below adjourned the matter to 14-06-2006 for evidence of the defendant. On that day as the petitioner was not doing well, he sought an adjournment and also filed an application in I.A.No.170 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act') requesting the Court to send the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, to handwriting expert for comparison of the figures, difference of inks and age of ink in respect of numerical No.1 and 20,000-00 and handwritings of names on the promissory note for the purpose of fair adjudication of the case. It is further stated that the Court below on 14-06-2006 while rejecting the request of the petitioner- defendant for adjournment, closed his evidence and posted the application in I.A.No.170 of 2006 to 23-06-2006 for ordens and that on 23-06-2006 the Court below while dismissing I.A.No.170 of 2006 posted the suit to 27-06-2006 for judgment. In the meanwhile, on 26-06-2006, the petitioner filed two applications in I.A.Nos. 181 and 181 of 2006 under section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, one to re-open the evidence on his side and the other to set aside the order dated 14-06-2006 passed in the suit, for fair adjudication of the case. The Court below on 27-06-2)306 while dismissing the petitions in I.A.Nos.181 and 182 of 2006 pronounced its judgment decreeing the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2005. As already stated, as against the order dated 23-06-2006 passed in IANo.170 of 2006 in O.S.No.25 of 2005, as well as the consequential orders dated 27-06-2006, viz., the docket order in I.A.No.182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.25 of 2005, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned orders and other material on record.