Dismissed

Boyina Venkata Ratnam v. Maddi Rama Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2022CRP/814/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to summon a stranger witness under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC. The High Court held the trial court did not err in refusing to produce a specific alleged promissory note as it was not necessary to reach a just conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Impugned order upheld.

Boyina Venkata Ratnam Vs Maddi Rama Rao — Money Laundering | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5902 of 2016

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Civil Revision petition is filed by the Petitioner / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned IV Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.669 of 2016 in O.S.No.61 of 2013 dated 17-10-2016 where in and whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC to issue summons to one Mr.T.Visweswara Rao is dismissed. The case of the petitioner before Trial Court in brief is that Respondent/Plaintiff filed suit against him for recovery of promissory debt basing on concocted and fabricated promissory note. He submits that respondent /plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined one of the attestor as PW2 and closed his evidence. It is the contention of the Revision petitioner that he himself examined as DW1 in this suit and to prove his contention which he raised in the written statement examining Mr.T.Visweswara Rao to produce pronote who also issued legal notice basing on alleged promissory note dated 26-01-2011 and for which he also issued reply is necessary to arrive just conclusion in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter before Trial Court denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention

¶6

¶7

of respondent that there is no connection between himself and the proposed witness Mr.T.Visweswara Rao who is also not connected with suit transaction and summoning the said person is not necessary. He prays to dismiss the petition.

¶8

After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition affidavit filed by the petitioner on the ground that proposed witness is not necessary to arrive just conclusion in this suit, who is also no way connected to suit transaction.

¶9

Aggrieved by the orders passed by Court below petitioner preferred present Civil Revision petition stating that order of the Trial Judge is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It is the contention of Revision petitioner that Trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by invoking Order XVI Rule 14 CPC which meant for doing substantial justice to the parties. He also stated that proposed witness issued legal notice to him for which, he replied and the promissory note which Mr.T.Visweswara Rao has stated in his legal notice is also time barred. He prays to allow the petition.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel Mrs.T.V.Sridevi for petitioner. She would submit that summoning of Mr.T.Visweswara Rao to produce pronote and examine him as Court witness, who issued legal notice to

¶11

¶12

the petitioner for which petitioner also replied is necessary to prove the defence of the petitioner in this suit. She prays to allow the petition.

¶13

05. Now the issue that emerges for consideration by this court is :-

¶14

Whether the orders under challenge is sustainable or tenable and the same warrants any interference of this court under Order 227 of Constitution of India ?

¶15

Point: -. Before going to the merits of the case it would be beneficial to quote Order XVI Rule 14 CPC which reads as under:-

¶16

Order XVI Rule 14 :

¶17

Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit: -

¶18

Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any law for the time being in force, where the Court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person, including a party to the suit, and not called as a witness by a party to the suit, the Court may, of its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as a witness or require him to produce such document.

¶19

The learned counsel for Revision petitioner relied on decision in D.K.Narasamma Vs.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) ALT 675

¶20

where in this Court explained circumstances under which Court can invoke Order XVI Rule 14 CPC to summon the witness. It is settled law that Court has got power to summon any witness to depose and produce any document, if the said evidence is necessary to arrive just conclusion in the suit. In the present case, contention of the petitioner

¶21

¶22

is that respondent while borrowing money from him obtained his signatures and thumb impressions in eight blank promissory notes out of which one promissory note created in the name of Mr.T.Visweswara Rao who issued legal notice to him for which he issued suitable reply. The copy of reply notice issued by petitioner is made available which shows that Mr.T.Visweswara Rao issued legal notice to the petitioner demanding to repay the alleged promissory note debt dated 26-012011 where in petitioner also stated that the said promissory note is created by respondent herein out of eight blank promissory notes

¶23

available with him. The same defence petitioner has taken in his written statement, which copy available for perusal of this Court. It is also pertinent to note that Revision petitioner himself has mentioned in the grounds of Revision that notice issued by T.Visweswara Rao in respect of promissory note dated 26-01-2011 is time barred. The petitioner intended to summon the said witness to produce the promissory note dated 26-01-2011. The learned Trial Judge after elaborately discussing the precedent law relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, refused to entertain the petition. It is also relevant to note that petitioner has taken defence in the written statement with regard to proposed discharge in the presence of three persons and now the petitioner intended to summon Mr.T.Visweswara Rao and to produce promissory note dated 26-01-2011 to prove his

¶24

¶25

contention that said promissory note is also created by the respondent herein. The learned Trial Judge rightly observed that as Mr.T.Visweswara Rao is neither attestor nor scribe of the suit promissory note and his evidence is not required to arrive just conclusion in the suit. It is also observed by learned Trial Judge that if petitioner intended to examine the witness he can examine, but there is no need to cause production of alleged promissory note. After considering the provisions of Section 118 and 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the contention of the petitioner is considered in the light of said provisions, this Court is also of an opinion that, summoning the said Mr.T.Visweswara Rao to produce the document ie., promissory note dated 26-01-2011 which is said to be time barred is not necessary to arrive just conclusion in the suit pending before the Trial Court. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings arrived by learned Trial Judge warrants interference of this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶26