(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order to examine the Scribe of the Ex.A.1 promissory note as P.W.3 passed the order dated 21-04-2025 in I.A.No.204/2025 in O.S. No. 32 / 2020 in the court of the IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa-City, Kadapa-Dist. Pending disposal of the above C.R.P and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of the suit to examine the Scribe of the Ex.A. 1 promissory note as P.W.3 passed the order dated 21-04-2025 in I.A.No.204/2025 in O.S. No. 32 / 2020 in the court of the IV Addl, District Judge, Kadapa-City, Kadapa-Dist. Pending disposal of the above C.R.P and pass)

1. The petitioner/defendant filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated 21.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff to reopen the suit on his behalf to file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of K.Padmanabha Reddy, who is scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note, was allowed.

2. Petitioner is the respondent/defendant, and respondent is the petitioner/plaintiff, in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,48,000/- basing on the suit promissory note dated 30.09.2017, alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant is none other than the plaintiff’s sister’s son. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. After framing of issues, both parties adduced their evidence. At that stage, the present application was came to be filed to reopen the evidence on behalf of respondent/plaintiff to examine K.Padmanabha Reddy, scribe of Ex.A1-suit promissory note. The Trial Court vide Order, dated 21.04.2025 allowed I.A.No.204 of 2025, observing as under:

                  “9. On perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of money under the Ex.A.1 promissory note and both the parties have adduced their evidence. At this stage, the petitioner/plaintiff has come up with this petition to examine one more witness in order to prove his case. Though, the respondent denied the petition averments, but with a view to give fair chance and opportunity to the petitioner, this petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff also filed chief examination of P.W.3 along with this petition. Further, the allegations raised by the respondent in the petitioner will be looked into the full length trial of the suit, but not in this petition…”

                  Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition was filed by defendant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend that 2nd attestor, who was examined as D.W2, is none other than the brother-in-law of plaintiff, and the scribe, who is sought to be examined as P.W3, is close associate of plaintiff. It is further contended that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, signature of P.W2-1st attestor was affixed instead of the signature of the respondent/plaintiff, and on the strength of the said affidavit, the trial Court committed irregularity in allowing the application.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff that 2nd attestor by name S.Rama Krishna Reddy was examined on behalf of defendant as D.W2 and he did not support the case of the plaintiff in his evidence, and thereupon, the present I.A.No.204 of 2025 was filed to reopen the evidence of respondent/plaintiff to examine K.Padmanabha Reddy, scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note as P.W3. It is his further submission that substantial amount of the plaintiff has been involved in the present suit and if opportunity to examine the scribe is not given to the plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. According to the learned counsel the finding arrived by the trial Court is on correct lines and prays the Court to dismiss the Revision Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ defendant and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the entire material available on record.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the impugned Order dated 21.04.2025 in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa suffers from any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety of law requiring any interference of this Court?

8. Respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of money basing on Ex.A1- Promissory Note. After filing written statement and framing of issues, trial began in the suit. Both parties adduced their evidence. On the ground that one of the attestors to Ex.A1-Promissory Note, by name S.Rama Krishna Reddy, was examined on behalf of defendant as D.W2 and he did not support the case of respondent/plaintiff, the present application came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff to reopen the evidence on his side to examine the scribe of Ex.A1-Promissory Note, by name K.Padmanabha Reddy. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that the affidavit accompanying the petition in I.A.No.204 of 2025 was not signed by the deponent i.e. Annareddy Venkata Subba Reddy (plaintiff), but, the affidavit contains the signature of P.W2, P.V.Subba Reddy, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1- Promissory Note.

9. There cannot be any dispute that pursuant to an affidavit signed by a third-party, which was accompanying the petition, the said application cannot be entertained to grant the relief sought therein. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the affidavit accompanying petition in I.A.No.204 of 2025 is signed by P.W2- P.V.Subba Reddy, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1- Promissory Note, though name of the plaintiff is mentioned as deponent of the affidavit. In fact, at the stage of numbering itself, an objection ought to have been taken by the office of the trial Court. The learned Trial Judge ought to have taken notice of the said fact, when the same is specifically averred in the counter filed by the petitioner/defendant in the said IA.

10. No doubt, the burden lies on the respondent/plaintiff to adduce the evidence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A1- Promissory Note to prove the execution of promissory note. But at the present stage of the suit, such a petition can be filed duly accompanied by an affidavit signed by the deponent, which, in this case is the respondent/plaintiff. Apparently, on the face of it, the signature affixed on the affidavit accompanying the petition in I.A.No.204 of 2025 tallies with the signature of P.V.Subba Reddy, who was examined as P.W2 in his deposition. In the considered opinion of this Court, basing on the strength of the affidavit signed by P.W2-P.V.Subba Reddy, the relief sought in the said petition cannot be granted. Therefore, on the said ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that substantial amount of the respondent/plaintiff is involved in the suit and the proposed witness is a crucial witness, being the scribe of Ex.A1-Promissory Note and if the respondent/plaintiff is not permitted to examine the said person as a witness on his behalf, the respondent/plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and hardship, and hence, liberty may be given to the respondent/plaintiff to file an appropriate fresh application to reopen the evidence on his side for examination of the scribe of Ex.A1-Promissory Note.

12. Admittedly, this Court is not finding fault with the order passed by the trial Court on the merits of the case. However, on the ground that competent person has not signed the affidavit, this Court is setting-aside the order passed by the trial Court. There cannot be any dispute that the burden of proving execution of suit promissory note and passing of consideration thereunder, rests solely on the plaintiff, and it is for the plaintiff to adduce all necessary evidence, including examination of attestors and scribe to discharge his burden. In view of the fact that dispute relating to substantial amount is involved in the suit and in view of the fact that the proposed witness, being scribe of Ex.A1-Promissory Note, is a crucial witness to prove the case of the respondent/plaintiff, and because of the reason that this Court has not set-aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity can be given to the respondent/plaintiff to file appropriate fresh application for reopening the evidence on his side.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Order dated 21.04.2025 in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Consequently, I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, stands dismissed. However, respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to file appropriate fresh application to reopen the evidence on his side within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and on filing of which, the same shall be decided on its own merits. The parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed.