THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4774 of 2010 Dated:09.12.2010 Between: P.Muthyalaiah. ...Petitioner And B.Jayachandra Reddy. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4774 of 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.17 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.659 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, bars a second appeal when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner has chosen to file revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent’s suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 22.03.1997 was decreed on 27.12.2001. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed appeal. In this revision, the only contention raised by the petitioner is that the plaintiff came to the Court alleging that the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, was executed by the defendant (petitioner herein) at Paleru Village. The plaintiff as P.W.1, however, stated that Ex.A1 was executed at the house of Thulasi Rama Krishna Reddy of Mogili Venkatagiri. Therefore, according to the petitioner the cause of action arose at Mogili Venkatagiri and not Paleru. The ground on which the Civil Revision Petition is sought to be sustained is devoid of any merit. It is nobody’s case that if the cause of action arises in Mogili Venkatagiri Village, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, lacks territorial jurisdiction. Further, reading from the judgment of the trial Court it is possible to infer that the suit promissory note was executed in the house of Thulasi Rama Krishna Reddy, who belongs to Mogili Venkatagiri Village. Secondly, as pointed out by the trial Court the defendant never alleged in the written statement that Ex.A1 was not scribed at Mogili Venkatagiri. His entire plea was one of denial of execution of promissory note and alternatively coercive obtaining of signatures by the plaintiff and his henchmen. Therefore, the point urged would not attract the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.12.2010 vs