HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No. 105 of 2008 Date: 07-02-2011 Between: A. Veerabhadra Rao ……… Appellant and Capt. Arun Prasad ……….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No. 105 of 2008 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) This Appeal is filed at the instance of the defendant under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree, dated 16-08-2007 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum- Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, decreeing the suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,46,30,000/- basing on a memorandum of understanding, dated 18-06-1999. Heard both sides. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,46,30,000/-. The case of the respondent herein is to the effect that having regard to the said memorandum of understanding, dated 18-06-1999 entered into between the parties, the appellant-defendant has issued postdated cheques and agreed to pay interest in the event of failure of honouring of the cheques. Though the said cheques were presented, they could not be encashed and they were dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Hence, the suit for recovery of the said amount. Contesting the suit, the case of the appellant-defendant was total denial and also placing reliance on the relationship between the parties, speculative litigation has been taken recourse to and in fact, having regard to various facts and circumstances mentioned therein, the appellant-defendant is said to be not liable, the details of which we are not going into in view of the disposal of the main Appeal itself. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed issues and proceeded with the trial, wherein on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-defendant, DW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. Considering the said evidence, the Court below decreed the suit. Hence, the Appeal. Shorn of all other details as to the pleas, which are taken respectively from both sides, the main contention urged on behalf of the appellant-defendant is to the effect that during the course of trial, where the appellant-defendant was contesting seriously about his liability, after the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was closed on 28-06-2006, the case was posted to 25-01-2007 and in fact on that day, the evidence of PW-1 was recorded and it was submitted through a Report by the Commissioner and immediately, the evidence of the appellant-defendant was closed on the same day without giving any opportunity to produce further evidence. Therefore, the appellant-defendant filed a specific application in I.A.No.181 of 2007 to reopen the case and to permit him to lead further evidence, however the application was dismissed on 19-04-2007. Against the same, the appellant-defendant has filed a Revision in C.R.P.C.No.2346 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 15-06-2007. In view of the same, the appellant-defendant was denied of proper opportunity to substantiate his case by leading further evidence in support. Hence, the appellant-defendant seeks opportunity to produce further evidence and other material. Having heard thus, and also on perusal of the material, there is no dispute in regard to the closing of the evidence on the appellant- defendant’s side on 25-01-2007 when the evidence of PW-1 through the Report was submitted. There is no other reason pointed out as to why further opportunity was not given. It is the case of the appellant- defendant that in fact, he made a request and the same was turned down. In view of the same, we are of the view that the appellant- defendant should be provided with an opportunity to substantiate his case in rebuttal. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree, dated 16-08-2007 are set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law by holding a fresh enquiry after giving notice and opportunity to both sides. It is also made clear that the parties are entitled to substantiate their case by producing necessary evidence and other material. In view of the remand of the matter, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 21-02-2011. No order as to costs. Office to communicate the copy of this order to the Court below forthwith. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 07-02-2011 YCR