HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1521 OF 2009. DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN Vellanki Venkata Narsimha Rao …Petitioner and Ponugupati Narsimha Rao … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1521 OF 2009. ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiﬀ before the Court below. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is ﬁled by the defendant in O.S.No. 343 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, aggrieved by the docket order dated 5.9.2008 passed in the said suit eschewing the evidence of DW1 and posting the matter on 22.09.2008 for further evidence of the defendant. Brief facts, in a nutshell, leading to ﬁle this revision are : the respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled suit being O.S.No. 343 of 2005 against the petitioner/defendant based on a promissory note for recovery of Rs. 94,432/- and subsequent interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization. The petitioner/defendant ﬁled written statement resisting the suit claim. In the said suit, issues are settled and trial has been commenced. At the time of examination of P.W.1, the petitioner/defendant did not make his appearance and therefore, the Court below closed the evidence of P.W.1 on 27.2.2006. Though the petitioner/defendant ﬁled an application being I.A.No. 4046 of 2008 to reopen the matter enabling him to cross-examine P.W.1, the Court below dismissed the said application holding that the petitioner/defendant did not ﬁle any proof that he had suﬀered from jaundice. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant ﬁled Civil Revision Petition No. 4884 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.12.2008 allowing the said application on payment of costs of Rs.300/-. In the said order, this Court imposed further condition that when the matter is posted for cross- examination of PW.1, the defendant should not ask for adjournment and if he is not ready on that day to cross-examine P.W.1, the lower Court may treat that the defendant has no intention to cross-examine P.W.1 and close the evidence of P.W.1. Later, it appears that the petitioner ﬁled an application before the Court below to send the promissory note for expert opinion and the same was allowed. It is stated that the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is awaiting. While so, when the matter was posted for evidence of DW.1, on 4.8.2008 and 19.8.2008, the petitioner/defendant was not present and therefore, Court below by docket order dated 5.9.2008 eschewed the evidence of D.W.1 and posted the matter for further evidence of petitioner/defendant on 22.09.2008. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner/defendant was due to his ill health and though the learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court below, the same was not considered. He further submits that if the order of the Court below is allowed to exist, the petitioner will loose his chance of adducing evidence and thus prejudice to the suit claim. Despite the service of notice, the respondent/plaintiﬀ did not choose to appear either by person or through a counsel. Admittedly the suit is ﬁled by the respondent/plaintiﬀ against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of pronote amount. Having regard to the fact that the matter relates to the year 2005 and the same was pending before this Court in the interregnum period for some time in CRP.No.4884 of 2008 and awaitingfor FSL report in the matter, I think it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the docket order dated 5.9.2008 to enable the petitioner/defendant to adduce evidence. Pertinent to state that if the docket order of the Court below is allowed to exist, it amounts to ignoring the evidence of the petitioner/defendant and thereby rights of the petitioner/defendant to the suit claim will be substantially affected. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and consequently the docket order dated 5.9.2008 is set aside. The Court below is directed to aﬀord an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to adduce evidence in the matter. The Civil Revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. --------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr.