THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4995 OF 2008 DATED:02.08.2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.08.2008, in I.A.No.303 of 2008 in O.S.No.2782 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w Section 151 CPC, requesting the Court to frame additional issues, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent-bank filed the suit against the petitioner-1st defendant and 2nd respondent-2nd defendant for recovery of certain amount due under the suit transaction. Petitioner-1st defendant filed written statement disputing the genuineness of the suit transaction and also denying the execution of the suit document. Necessary issues were framed and the trial of the suit also commenced. At that stage, petitioner-1st defendant filed the present application requesting the Court to frame two additional issues namely 1. Whether the acknowledgment debt and statement of account filed by the plaintiff is pertaining to S.B.A/c No.7355 or not ? 2. Whether the 2nd defendant knowingly has executed the said guarantee on 05.04.2000 for the said cause of action without providing his bio-data and whether such document is acceptable in the eye of law? 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application observing that the proposed additional issues are not necessary as they are already covered by the issues originally framed. In view of the defence taken by the petitioner-1st defendant, disputing the suit transaction and also denying the execution of the said document, the burden squarely lies on the 1st respondent-plaintiff, as observed by the trial Court. 1st respondent-plaintiff has to therefore establish by adducing necessary evidence, every material fact asserted by them including the aspects raised by the petitioner-1st defendant by way of the proposed additional issues. As the impugned order shows that the aspects from the proposed additional issues are already covered by the original issues, it is considered that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd August, 2011. Tsy