THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5406 of 2010 Dated:03.12.2010 Between: V.R.Suresh. ...Petitioner And S.Damodara Reddy, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5406 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.258 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The first respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.56,000/- based on a promissory note dated 20.12.2002 allegedly executed by the petitioner herein. In the written statement the petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note and also alleged that the first respondent is a stranger to him. He further alleged that the respondents herein, who are closely related, hatched a plan to cause loss to the petitioner and filed the suit based on the promissory note. Though the suit was filed in 2006 sometime in 2007 the petitioner filed I.A.No.94 of 2007 to implead respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein - mother and daughter; as party defendant Nos.2 and 3. In the affidavit accompanying the said Interlocutory Application he alleged that he never executed any document, and truth will come out if respondent Nos.2 and 3 are added as defendants. The Court below dismissed the application by impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of the Civil Revision Petition. After giving due consideration, this Court is convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, nor the petitioner demonstrated the error, if any, which cannot be corrected at a later stage by the appellate authority as contemplated under Section 105(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further, as rightly observed by the Court below, the suit transaction was between the petitioner and the first respondent and even if there are, allegedly, some transactions between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, they have, prima facie, nothing to do with the suit transaction. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 03.12.2010 vs