THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.1011 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in I.A.No.1178/2008 in O.S.No.1033/2006 in dismissing the petition filed by the defendant under Order 16, Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for summoning the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Paloncha Branch to produce the particulars of the cheque dated 12.12.2001 drawn on Andhra Bank, Palvoncha Branch for Rs.30,000/-. 3. From the material available on record it could be seen that the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1033/2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for recovery of the amount, based on the promissory note. The defendant, who is the petitioner herein, filed written statement and his case is that he had borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.12.2001 and had given blank promissory note and that later though he paid the entire amount with interest, plaintiff did not given the blank promissory note. In the present petition filed by him, his case is that the plaintiff issued cheque for Rs.30,000/- and obtained blank promissory note and that he encased the cheque. As rightly found by the court below, the petitioner/defendant did not take this plea that the plaintiff issued the cheque and obtained blank promissory note. His case is that he borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and he issued blank promossory note. Therefore the stand of the defendant in the written statement and in the present I.A. is quite different and he introduced the issuance of cheque in the present petition, without there being any pleading in the written statement. When a suggestion was put to the plaintiff, when he was examined as P.W.1, that he issued the cheque, the same was denied. It is to be noticed that the defendant can always lead evidence in support of his case that he discharged the loan amount, but he cannot be permitted to file applications with different stands. In my view, the approach of the defendant in filing the present application is to drag on the matter and the same cannot be permitted. 4. The court below considering the facts and circumstances, rightly dismissed the I.A. and I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that the court below shall dispose of the suit on its merits, without being influenced by any of the observation in this order. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- 03—11—2009