HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2938 & 2939 of 2011 Date: November 15, 2011 Between: Nadikattu Madanmohan Reddy, S/o.Koti Reddy … Petitioner And Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Main Branch, Krishna Colony, Warangal – 506 002 and another … Respondents Common Order: Both these revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the common order dated 28.06.2011 passed in I.A.Nos.248 and 247 of 2010 respectively in O.S.No.179 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal; as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. By the aforesaid order, the applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to reopen the evidence and also to direct the Station House Officer, Inthejargunj Police Station, Warangal to produce certain documentary evidence are rejected. Hence, these revision petitions. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, which is filed for recovery of money against the respondents-banks, to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,442/- along with interest. In the suit, it is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that M/s.Kaveri Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad issued cheque bearing No.015772 dated 08.07.2004 for Rs.4,54,911/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Nakkalagutta Branch, in his favour for supply of seeds. It is stated that the petitioner has deposited the said cheque with the 1st respondent-Bank for clearance on 12.07.2004 through his clerk by name Mr.Vamsi. When the said cheque was not cleared and when he made further enquiries it is revealed that a new account is opened bearing S.B.A/c.No.22282 on 12.07.2004 in the name of one Sri N.R.Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o.Vijaya Vardhan Reddy and in the said account, a cheque of the petitioner was presented on 13.07.2004 at 10.55 a.m., and amount was withdraw at 11.06 a.m. It is the case of the petitioner that though cheque was issued in his name, i.e. Nadikattu Madanmohan Reddy, the same was tampered by inserting the letter ‘R’ after his surname and with the collusion of the respondents a new account was opened in the name of N.R.Madan Mohan Reddy and the said amount was withdrawn illegally. The petitioner also filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Inthejargunj Police Station, Warangal, complaining illegal withdrawal of the amount on the cheque issued to him, by tampering the same. A case was registered in Cr.No.171/2004 on 15.07.2004 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that as there was no progress in the investigation; as such, in view of the observations made by the Banking Ombudsman, he approached the civil court and filed suit for recovery of money. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents-banks, the Manager and Senior Manager of the respondents-banks were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. When the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner herein filed to applications; one for reopening the evidence and the other to direct the Station House Officer, Inthejargunj Police Station, to produce the cheque in question and the account-opening form of S.B.A/c.No.22252, I.D. proof, withdrwal form of N.R.Madan Mohan Reddy, which are seized in connection with the investigation in Cr.No.171 of 2004. The said applications are dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of deciding all the issues in the suit, the documents which are in the custody of the Police in connection with Cr.No.171 of 2004 are crucial documents; as such the court below ought to have allowed the applications of the petitioner. It is submitted that the court below erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner by recording a finding that the evidence on record which is already collected is sufficient for disposal of the suit. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-banks that the suit is of the year 2006 and only after completion of evidence, when the matter is reserved for arguments, the present applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the common order passed by the tral Court. In this case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that cheque was issued by the respondent-bank in the name of the petitioner, i.e. Nadikattu Madanmohna Reddy. It is represented that cheque was presented for withdrawal in his account but the same was misused with the collusion of the bank authorities. It is also represented that