THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5378 of 2010 Date:01st December, 2010 Between: 1. V.Ramachander Rao @ V.Rama Rao (died) L.Rs.2 to 4. ..... Petitioners AND 1. Uco Bank, Marika Branch, Mahabubnagar District, rep. by its Branch Manager. .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5378 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.166 of 2010 in A.S.No.56 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 r/w.151 CPC. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the appellants in A.S.No.56 of 2007 are: The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,53,153/- along with costs and subsequent interest from the deceased/1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that deceased/1st defendant V.Ramachander Rao let out the premises to the plaintiff on a rent of Rs.200/- p.m. and undertook to construct a new premises over the vacant site of 1000 sq. feet. He obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff bank. After due negotiations, the deceased/1st defendant undertook to construct a new premises admeasuring 1375 sq. feet in ground floor and 625 sq. feet in the first floor. He also agreed to receive Rs.1000/- p.m. towards rent. The plaintiff was given an option to continue the lease for another 5 years with an increase of 15% in the rentals. The deceased/1st defendant availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff bank. He executed the loan agreement and a promissory note for Rs.50,0000/- on 22.02.1986. The deceased/1st defendant completed the construction of the ground floor over a plinth area of 1375 sq. feet. He failed to construct the 1st floor despite several requests made by the plaintiff. The deceased/1st defendant failed to liquidate the outstanding amount in the loan account. He executed revival letters on 09.06.11997 and 12.05.2000. Total outstanding due in the account was Rs.2,53,153/- on the date of filing of the suit. The deceased/1st defendant also filed a suit being O.S.No.4 of 2005 for recovery of damages of Rs.20,058/-. The suit filed by the bank as well as the suit filed by the deceased/1st defendant came to be clubbed and a joint trial came to be conducted. The deceased/1st defendant died pending the trial. His legal representatives came on record as defendants in O.S.No.10 of 2003 and as plaintiffs in O.S.No.4 of 2005. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed O.S.No.4 of 2005 while decreeing O.S.No.10 of 2003. Assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10 of 2003, the defendants 2 to 4 filed A.S.No.56 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Mahabubnagar. They moved I.A.No.166 of 2010 under Order 41, Rule 27 r/w.151 CPC for receiving a notice said to have issued by the plaintiff-bank to deceased/1st defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned District Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to offer sufficient reasons for receiving the document as additional evidence and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 15.03.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pending the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff issued a demand notice dated 20.02.2008 intimating the amount due as Rs.1,01,214/- and in which case, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.2,53,153/- cannot be maintained and therefore, the notice addressed to deceased/1st defendant Ramachandra Rao is a material document for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the appeal. 5. The respondent filed counter resisting the application before the appellate Court. It is stated in the counter that the document sought to be received as additional evidence has been concocted by the petitioners. For better understanding, I may refer the relevant portion of the counter, which reads as hereunder: “The respondent not disputes about filing of suit O.S.No.10/2003 against the petitioners herein before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and same was decreed on 16.03.2006 and also preferred present appeal. But the respondent denied that during pendency of appeal the respondent issued demand notice on 20.02.2008 along with covering letter stating that your due amount is Rs.1,01,214-00 the same may be settled in special compromise settlement of N.P.A. account program, as such there is no certainty of due amount payable to the Bank. The petitioners created said demand notice and filed in present appeal only to drag on the matter. So on this ground alone present petition of the petitioners is liable for dismissal.” 6. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,53,153/- . The trial Court on full-pledged trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.2,09,059.04 ps. It is not the case of the deceased/1st defendant that he was due only Rs.1,01,214/-. The respondent/plaintiff specifically denied of issuing such notice to the deceased/1st defendant in the counter. The document sought to be received is in no way essential for adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal. The learned District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:01st December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5378 of 2010 Date:01st December, 2010