THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5184 OF 2010 Dated:16.09.2011 Between: Magapu Veera Raghavulu .. Petitioner And D.Venkata Reddy and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5184 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the first defendant. The first respondent filed O.S.No.552 of 2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- based on a promissory note against the petitioner and second respondent herein. The petitioner contested the suit. He denied the execution of promissory note and also receiving consideration. During trial, the first respondent as PW.1 deposed that he advanced the amount under promissory note – Ex.A1 to the defendants after bringing the same from his bank locker of Andhra Bank, G.Mamidala Branch one day prior to the date of execution of the promissory note. The petitioner then filed I.A.No.718 of 2010 under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to summon the Manager of the Andhra Bank to produce the record of transactions in respect of plaintiff’s locker with their bank on 30.06.2007. The said application was dismissed on 28.10.2010 by the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, aggrieved by which, the present revision is filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. He would contend that when the defendant is denying the execution of the promissory note and also the receipt of consideration, the evidence of Andhra Bank Manager would be relevant. This Court is afraid, the submission cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the petitioner that the first respondent/plaintiff had no capacity to advance an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the suit promissory note, as a presumption, is supported by consideration, the evidence of the Manager of the bank could not be much relevant and the burden is on the defendants to prove the non-execution of the promissory note and non-receipt of consideration. This Court therefore does not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 16.09.2011 KH