THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P. No.3493 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, Kadapa District, in exercising the powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, in putting question to P.W.3 N. Venkata Subba Reddy in O.S.No. 75 of 2010. 2. Back ground facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.75 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.64,267/- based on a promissory note dated 5.1.2008 executed by the defendant for Rs.40,000/- promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff filed affidavit of P.W.3 N. Venkata Subba Reddy in lieu of chief-examination. He stated in his chief affidavit that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 5.1.2008 from the plaintiff for his necessity and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day for the same amount agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. In the cross- examination, he stated that he does not know any thing about the suit. The learned Junior Civil Judge exercising powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act put the following question to the witness. “Do you know in which case you are giving evidence and facts of the case. I am giving evidence in a case where defendant borrowed amount from P.W.1”. For completion of narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the cross-examination of P.W.3 and it is thus: “I live by cultivation. Since P.W.1 is the resident of my village, I know her. Like, so the defendant also. I never borrowed any amount fromP.W.1. I do not know whether Ramulamma, used to lend amount to others. P.W.1 had gone to Kuwait but, I do not remember when exactly she returned. She might have returned back about 4 years back ago. I do not know anything about the suit.” 3. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 27.8.2011. Respondent/plaintiff entered into appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no ambiguity in the cross-examination by P.W.3 warranting the trial court to exercise the powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the answer elicited by the trial court to the question is required to be eschewed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the exercise of powers by the trial court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act in the given facts and circumstances. 7. I have gone through the chief affidavit of the P.W.3 and his cross- examination. In the chief-affidavit he states that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities. In the Cross-examination, he states that he does not know any thing about the suit. Learned trial judge entertained doubt as to in which case, the P.W.3 has come to court to give evidence. Therefore, the learned trial judge put the question and thereupon P.W.3 gave answer as stated supra. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge is justified in invoking powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and putting the question as stated supra. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 24.11.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P. No.3493 OF 2011 24.11.2011 Gk.