HC - With the plea taken by the petitioner that the suit pronote is forged and that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend money, the burden rests on the respondent-plaintiff to prove the plea of the petitioner as incorrect

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1180 of 2012

Dated: 12.03.2012

Between:

G.Lakshminarayana                                                     ..   Petitioner.

    And

C.Ravi Kumar

                                                                                  ..   Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri K.Ram Mohan Chowdary

Counsel for the Respondent: ---

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

          This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 05.01.2012, in I.A.No.514 of 2011 in O.S.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

         

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note allegedly executed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed his written statement wherein he has pleaded that the suit pronote is forged and the respondent had no capacity to lend the money.

         

The petitioner filed I.A.No.514 of 2011 under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C., for summoning the Sub-Registrar, Guntakal, for causing production of the sale transactions contained in Book No.1 for the period from 01.12.2007 to 31.12.2007. The obvious basis for filing this application is the stand taken by the respondent/plaintiff in his cross-examination that he sold away his house in the month of December, 2007.  The lower Court dismissed the application, by order dated 05.01.2012. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

          I am of the opinion that this application filed by the petitioner before the lower Court is a piece of frivolous and vexatious litigation.  With the plea taken by the petitioner that the suit pronote is forged and that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend money, the burden rests on the respondent/plaintiff to prove the plea of the petitioner as incorrect. Therefore, there is no obligation on the petitioner to discharge the burden, which is rested on the respondent/plaintiff.  I am of the opinion that it is wholly unnecessary for the petitioner to file I.A.No.514 of 2011. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court.

          The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.1589 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

          

_______________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

12.03.2012

v v