THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3460 OF 2008 DATED:21-02-2011 Between: Chukka Obulu … Petitioner A n d Darsi Mahalakshmi … Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order, dated 10.07.2008, in I.A.SR.No. 2975 of 2008 in O.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant for framing additional issue, was rejected. 2. None appears and no representation is made on either side. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the suit promissory note, dated 25.03.2004. According to the plaintiff, defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2004 and executed a suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and that the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,500/- on 07.03.2007 and made an endorsement on the back of the suit promissory note and the balance amount was not discharged in spite of repeated demands. 4. Petitioner filed a written statement contending that the suit promissory note was executed in renewal of an earlier promissory note. According to the defendant, he borrowed Rs.30,000/- from Kotha Ramamohana Rao on 12.10.1998 and subsequently renewed the same by executing other promissory note, dated 25.03.2002, for Rs.50,000/- and that at the request of the said Ramamohana Rao defendant executed the suit promissory note for Rs.1,25,000/- in the name of his mother-in-law, the plaintiff. Defendant therefore pleads that there was no passing of consideration under the suit promissory note. 5. The burden squarely lies on the defendant to establish his plea that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration inasmuch as he admitted the execution of the suit promissory note. Necessary issues were already settled for trial. Defendant now filed the application for framing additional issue to the effect whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. In view of the admission of execution of the suit promissory note by the defendant and in view of the plea raised by defendant that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the burden of proving the same squarely lying on the defendant, the additional issue as proposed does not simply arise. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the petition as necessary issue is already framed, fixing the burden of proof on the defendant. The impugned order does not call for interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY 21st February, 2011 Tsy/ksm