LAWS(TLNG)-2020-12-1

S. RAMESH BABU Vs. B. SADANANDAM

Decided On December 03, 2020
S. RAMESH BABU Appellant
V/S
B. Sadanandam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 28.08.2019, passed by the VIII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.131 of 2018 in O.S.No.852 of 2011, wherein and whereunder an application filed, under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 of C.P.C., by the petitioner/defendant seeking issuance of summons to Mr.T.Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police, GOW/CID, Hyderabad, to give evidence with regard to the receipt of attested copies of promissory notes, was dismissed.

(2.) The facts in issue are as under:

(3.) A Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is contended that the petitioner/defendant had not taken any plea with regard to the documents in question in the written statement nor filed any list of witnesses and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable both on facts and in law and deserves to be dismissed in limini. It is further stated that the petitioner/defendant was not disputing his signature and the date on Exs.A1 and A2/promissory notes and only to evade the legally enforceable debt, he filed the present petition. It is also stated that the witness, who is proposed to be summoned, is a witness of the respondent/plaintiff and as such summoning the Investigating Officer as defence witness is untenable. It is further stated that the documents in question are subject matter of a criminal case in C.C.No.538 of 2011 arising out of Crime No.15 of 2011 and that the same has been stayed by the High Court on an application made by the wife of the petitioner/defendant. It is further stated that unless the said documents are marked as exhibits and admitted by the respondent/plaintiff in the criminal Court in C.C.No.538 of 2011, the same cannot be considered and that the respondent/plaintiff never fabricated the promissory notes (Exs.A1 and A2) and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.