HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.230 OF 2010 DATE:05-02-2010 BETWEEN Koruprolu Tata Rao …Petitioner AND Miditana Satyanarayana & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.230 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner-first defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the docket order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, East Godavari District, dated 2.12.2009 in I.A.No.273 of 2009 in O.S.No.440 of 2004 whereby, the request of the petitioner to frame the issue ‘whether the endorsement, dated 4.11.2004 on the back of suit promissory note, dated 1.12.2001 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant is valid and for consideration and thereby the plaintiff became holder in due course’ was rejected holding that the same would be considered at the time of judgment. It appears, in the written statement, the petitioner pleaded the discharge of debt to the second defendant-second respondent herein and the second defendant having represented that the promissory note could not be traced out, passed a receipt for the amount received with an assurance that the promissory note would be returned to the petitioner as soon as it is traced out. No plea appears to be taken in the written statement that the endorsement obtained by the plaintiff-first respondent herein from the second defendant is forged one and no such issue was framed to that effect. If there is any such issue, the petitioner is at liberty to lead evidence on that aspect. Since the issue ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for’ has already been framed, that itself is sufficient to go into the aspect whether the petitioner discharged the suit amount or not as pleaded by him and the endorsement made is forged or not. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2009 Tsr.