THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3505 and 3563 of 2010 Dated:28.10.2010 Between: Kambhampati Swarnalatha, And others. ….Petitioners And Kanigolla Sayanarayana. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3505 and 3563 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be disposed of by a common order as they arise in the same suit in respect of two connected interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners (hereafter called, defendants). The sole respondent (hereafter called, plaintiff) filed the suit for recovery of money based on promissory note executed by one Kambhampati Vikram. As he died, the suit, being O.S.No.379 of 2007, was instituted against the mother, wife and daughter of the deceased promissor. The defendants filed written statement opposing the suit. Inter alia, they pleaded that the signature on the promissory note is not that of Vikram and that it is forged. They also pleaded that the suit promissory note was brought into existence by one Smt.Chalasani Sarada, the partner of the Tobacco firm, with the active connivance of the plaintiff. The suit is coming up for trial. At that stage, the defendants moved two applications. I.A.No.667 of 2010 (corresponding to C.R.P.No.3563 of 2010) under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was filed to summon the loan register from the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), Mokhasa Narasannapalem of Nuzividu Mandal in Krishna District. The other application, being I.A.No.669 of 2010 (corresponding to C.R.P.No.3505 of 2010) was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the suit promissory note for comparison of signatures of late Vikram in the loan register under loan account No.2283, which was sought to be summoned. These two applications were opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court by two separate orders dismissed both the applications. In these revisions, the Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have taken the plea in the written statement, and therefore, rejection of the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that it is belated is unjustified and vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. The trial Court while dismissing the application observed that the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove execution of the promissory note by promissor and that the application is belated. A lot of criticism is made against this observation. It is no doubt true that when the defendant demurs the promissory note as forged and fabricated, the burden to prove the same squarely lies on the defendant. It does not, however, mean that the defendants can take their own time and approach the Court after lapse of about four years when the suit is coming for trial. Further, no details were given as to the period during which Vikram signed the loan register of PACS. In that view of the matter this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record, which is not capable of being corrected at a later stage in appeal/revision. It is always open to the petitioners to take the plea under Section 105(1) of CPC. The Civil Revision Petitions do not deserve any consideration. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed in limine. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 28.10.2010 vs