THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6154 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6142 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.539 OF 2011. Date: 14.03.2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6154 OF 2009 Between Bangaru Rajeswari, West Godavari District. … Petitioner and Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy and 7 others. … Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2009 Between Bangaru Rajeswari, West Godavari District. … Petitioner and Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy and 7 others. … Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6142 OF 2010 Between Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy and 7 others … Petitioner and Bangaru Rajeswari, West Godavari District. … respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.539 OF 2011 Between Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy and 7 others … Petitioner and Bangaru Rajeswari, West Godavari District. … respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6154 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6142 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.539 OF 2011. COMMON ORDER: These four Civil Revision Petitions which arose out of the proceedings in O.S.No.191 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram are heard together and decided by this common order. C.R.P.No.6154 of 2009 and C.R.P.No.6202 of 2009 are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.191 of 2002, whereas C.R.P.No.6142 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.539 of 2011 are filed by the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the main suit. The facts, in brief, are as under: O.S.No.191 of 2002 has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,62,233/- against Sannidi Satyanarayana Murthy on the basis of a promissory note dated 30.04.2000. The sole defendant – Sannidi Satyanarayana Murthy filed a written statement contending that he never executed the alleged promissory note dated 30.04.2000 nor received the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that about 10 to 12 years back he had borrowed some amount from the plaintiff and in that context the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on some blank printed forms of promissory notes. Subsequently though the defendant repaid the entire amount borrowed, the plaintiff did not return the promissory note signed by him in spite of several demands made and filed the suit on the basis of one of the duly signed blank promissory notes to have wrongful gain. In support of the suit claim, the plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1. The suit promissory note was marked as Ex.A-1, the registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff dated 11.11.2002 was marked as Ex.A-2 and the postal acknowledgement dated 12.11.2002 received from the defendant was marked as Ex.A-3. The plaintiff also examined the witness and scribe of the Ex.A-1 as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. The defendant got himself examined as D.W.1 and while the matter was coming up for further evidence, the sole defendant Sannidi Satyanarayana Murthy died. The legal representatives of the sole deceased defendant were brought on record as defendants 2 to 8 and with the leave of the Court, they filed an additional written statement pleading inter alia that the plaintiff and her husband were money lenders by profession and that they were doing money lending business in the name and style of Vaibhav Bankers at Bhimavaram and that without maintaining any records they were grabbing the valuable properties of the public. It was also pleaded that the deceased defendant issued a reply dated 22.11.2002 to the suit notice alleging that the plaintiff was illegally doing finance business and that about 10 to 12 years back the plaintiff’s husband obtained signatures of the 1st defendant on blank printed forms of promissory notes and though the entire debt was discharged the blank signed promissory notes were not returned. The defendants had also made a counter- claim against the plaintiff seeking prosecution of the plaintiff and other witnesses under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for criminal conspiracy to grab the property of the defendant No.1 and for filing a false suit on the basis of a fabricated promissory note. They also made a further claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the plaintiff for the business loss suffered by the 1st defendant and another sum of Rs.5 Lakhs for causing death of the 1st defendant and loss caused to his family members due to the illegal action of the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendants filed I.A.Nos.1357, 1358 & 1359 of 2005 under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively to enable the defendants to adduce further evidence by marking documents as additional evidence through them. The defendants also filed I.A.No.1356 of 2005 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the matter for the said purpose. The Court below by separate orders passed on 4.11.2009 allowed I.A.No.1357 of 2005 filed for recalling P.W.1. I.A.No.1356 of 2005 filed to reopen the matter was also allowed. However I.A.Nos.1358 & 1359 of 2005 filed to recall P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively were dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders in I.A.Nos.1357 & 1356 of 2005 the plaintiff filed C.R.P.Nos.6154 of 2009 and 6202 of 2009. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.Nos.1358 & 1359 of 2005 the defendants filed C.R.P.No.6142 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.539 of 2011. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the defendants 2 to 8 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased defendant and filed an additional written statement with the leave of the Court raising additional defence. In the affidavits filed in support of the applications filed to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 and to reopen the matter, it is stated that certain crucial documents like the reply notice issued by the defendant, original payment receipts, etc., were not marked in evidence though the said documents were very much available with the counsel who appeared for the deceased defendant. It is further pleaded that the deceased defendant in his evidence as D.W.1 deposed as to the reply notice got issued by him and the payment receipts and when the same were put to the plaintiff in his cross-examination, he had admitted the receipt of reply notice. Thus according to the defendants it is necessary to bring the said documents on record and lead further evidence on the said aspects. Accordingly P.Ws.1 to 3 were sought to be recalled. In the counter filed by the plaintiff, while stating that he did not issue any payment receipts, it was contended that the alleged documents were not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit and the defendants cannot be permitted to file the said documents at a belated stage and at any rate P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be recalled for the said purpose. The Court below, while observing that the documents sought to be produced by the defendants are necessary to decide the matter on merits, allowed I.A.No.1357 of 2005 to recall P.W.1 (plaintiff). Consequently, I.A.No.1356 of 2005 to reopen the matter was also allowed. However I.A.Nos.1358 & 1359 of 2005 filed to recall P.Ws.2 and 3 were dismissed holding that since they were not concerned with the alleged receipts passed in favour of the sole defendant nor with the reply notice issued by him, there was no need to recall them. The learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.6154 and 6202 of 2009 (the plaintiffs), while submitting that since the matter is coming up for further evidence of the defendants, it is always open to them to mark the documents sought to be produced by them through their witnesses, vehemently contended that the Court below committed a grave error in recalling P.W.1 particularly since the plaintiff has denied the alleged part payment receipts. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that since the 1st defendant, who issued the reply notice and in whose favour the part payment receipts were issued is no more the said documents can be marked only through the plaintiff who is the other party to the said documents, the Court below has rightly reopened the matter and recalled P.W.1. Having allowed the defendants to file an additional written statement, it is necessary to give them an opportunity to produce the documents to substantiate the additional plea and defence taken by them. Admittedly the defendants 2 to 8 are not parties to the suit transaction and therefore it is necessary to put the said documents to the plaintiff. Moreover the defendants made a counter-claim against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10 Lakhs. That apart by a separate order passed today in C.R.P.No.6141 of 2010 this Court framed certain additional issues which are necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. Therefore it is essential to recall P.W.1 as sought by the defendants. At any rate, the discretion exercised by the Court below in recalling P.W.1 on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be termed as perverse and therefore such a discretionary order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as P.Ws.2 and 3 are concerned, admittedly they are the witness and scribe respectively to the suit promissory note and they have nothing to do with the documents now sought to be produced as evidence by the defendants. The scope of their evidence being very limited, there is no need to recall P.Ws.2 and 3. Therefore the Court below cannot be held to have committed any patent error of fact or law in dismissing I.A.Nos.1358 & 1359 of 2005. For the aforesaid reasons, all the four Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 14.03.2011 gbs