THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE C.R.P.NO : 2185 of 2009 Between: K.Doda Singnh ..... PETITIONER AND Mandava Padma .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.R.P.No.2185 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against an order, dated 01-12-2008 passed by the IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Khammam in I.A.No.754 of 2008 in A.S.No.79 of 2005 dismissing the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 25 read with Section 151CPC to frame additional issues. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.229 of 2002. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of a pronote and the same was decreed. Against which, the petitioner- defendant preferred an appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing, petitioner-defendant filed an application in I.A.No.754 of 2008 in A.S.No.79 of 2005 for framing the following additional issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender and whether she possessed money lending licence under Section 3 of the A.P. (T.A.) Money Lenders Act? 2. Whether the plaintiff has maintained accounts under Section 5 of the A.P. (T.A.) Money Lending Act?” 3. The impugned order records the additional issues as follows: “1. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender or not? 2. Whether the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Section 3 Clause A and B Sub section (1) of Section 5 and Sub section (1) of Section 5 and Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the A.P. (T.A.) Money Lenders Act, 1349? 4. The learned appellate Judge dismissed the said petition holding that admittedly the petitioner-defendant did not plead that respondent-plaintiff is a money lender, and since the petitioner/respondent did not take such a plea at the earliest point of time, the same cannot be accepted. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant is that the respondent-plaintiff, in her evidence as P.W.1, admitted that she is doing money lending business and since it is a question of law, the same need not be pleaded in the written statement and therefore, additional issues have to be framed. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff contends that even at the time of arguments in the suit, the evidence of P.W.1 was on record and the petitioner-defendant never took the plea for framing additional issues. Since the petitioner did not take such a plea at the earliest point of time, there is no question of any additional issues to be framed. 7. Now the point for consideration is that whether the additional issues have to be framed or not? 8. Undisputedly the question raised is a question of law and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that P.W.1 herself, in her evidence, has admitted that she is doing money lending business. In the circumstances, it is a fit case where additional issues can be framed. Though there are some latches on the part of the petitioner-defendant in not taking the said plea at the earliest point of time, for that reason alone, the petitioner- defendant cannot be denied the opportunity of pleading for framing of additional issues. The decision on the additional issues may go to the root of the matter. 9. In the circumstances, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The lower appellate Court is directed to frame the additional issues as proposed in the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant in I.A.No.754 of 2008 in A.S.No.79 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Khammam. After framing the additional issues, in case, the lower appellate Court feels that additional evidence is desirable, it may remit the matter to the trial Court for adducing additional evidence to the extent of additional issues only. 10. Before concluding the case, I am constrained to observe that the learned appellate Judge ought to have taken a little more care in writing the judgments and avoided silly mistakes. Para 8 of the impugned order contains several avoidable grammatical as well as spelling mistakes. ______________________ 17th August 2009 KVR