VIROTHI TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. KOTA VENU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful petitioner/defendant are directed against the common orders dated 19.08.2014 of the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam passed in IA nos. 850 and 851 of 2014 in OS no. 1 of 2010.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant (the defendant, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff (the plaintiff, for brevity). I have perused the material record.

(3.) The case of the defendant, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.23,26,000/ - with subsequent interest and costs. The said suit is filed on the foot of a promissory note for Rs.15,00,000/ -. The defendant is resisting the said suit inter alia contending that the suit is a false suit and is filed by forging the signature at the instance and instigation of Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao and his brother Kota Sri Jaggu Naidu and in gross collusion, connivance and conspiracy with them. Indeed, this defendant had also filed against Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao the suit OS.no.186 of 2009 on the file of the court of the learned XIII Additional District Judge for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/ - with subsequent interest and costs and also OS.no.283 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/ - with subsequent interest and costs. The said suits are pending. The defendant had also filed CC no.730 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka based on dishonoured cheque for Rs.2,00,000/ - issued by the said Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao. The said CC was disposed of in favour of this defendant on 09.05.2014. Out of vengeance the said Kota Venkata Vasudeva Rao got filed against this defendant, the present suit through the present plaintiff. To disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove his defence, it has become necessary to file these two petitions viz., one to receive on file the experts report/opinion furnished by the expert Narindra Singh, Director, Documents Division, Truth Labs of Hyderabad by granting necessary leave and by condoning the delay in filing the same; and the other to summon the said expert to give evidence in regard to his said opinion in regard to exhibit A1 -promissory note. If the requests in these petitions are not granted, the defendant would suffer serious and irreparable loss.