IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS 1st day of April, 2011 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 984 and 1000 of 2011 Between: Kothapalli Vara Padmavathi Petitioner and Nerusu Nancharamma Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 984 and 1000 of 2011 Common Order: These two revisions are directed against the orders dated: 21-02-2011 passed in I.A.Nos. 400 and 401 of 2010 in O.S.No. 6 of 2006 by the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. As both the revisions arise out of the same suit, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the above suit filed for recovery of money, basing on a promissory note, after closure of the evidence and when the suit is coming up for arguments, filed two interlocutory applications – I.A.No. 400 of 2010 for reopening of the evidence of plaintiff and I.A.No. 401 of 2010 for further cross examination of PW-1, contending that there is no privity of contract in between her and the respondent/plaintiff, no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note, she does not know the plaintiff and that she could not instruct about the financial capacity of the plaintiff and therefore her counsel could not cross examine PW-1 on the said aspects and as such an opportunity should be afforded to her to cross-examine PW-1 on the said aspects by reopening the suit. 3. On dismissal of the said interlocutory applications by the learned District Judge, holding that cross examination of PW-1 reveals that she was sufficiently cross examined on her financial capacity and to the various questions put to the plaintiff by the defendant’s counsel, she answered that she owned Ac.30.00 of land, about Ac.2.50 cents land stands in her name and other properties are standing on the name of her children; at the time of suit transaction an extent of Ac.8.00 was standing in her name and after selling the land she kept the amount in Bank of Baroda, Uppaluru Branch and out of that Rs.4.00 Lakhs was withdrawn from the bank and remaining amount was taken from the sale consideration of landed property etc., and in view of the same no further cross examination is required. Questioning the said finding the present revisions are filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that until the Plaintiff was examined in the suit, she does not know her capacity and only on seeing her, the petitioner came to know that the plaintiff has no such capacity and hence she should be afforded with an opportunity to further cross examine her. 5. In the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant she stated that her husband borrowed an amount of Rs.1.15 Lakhs from Jonnalagadda Satyanarayana, a co-employee of her husband, who obtained blank promissory notes and blank cheques and one filled cheque without date in the name of Purnachandra Rao. Her husband used to pay abnormal interest @ 3% per month. Besides the blank cheques, the said Jonnalagadda Satyanarayana also insisted for a blank promissory note signed by his wife and also two passport size photographs of the petitioner/defendant. The said J. Satyanarayana obtained the same from petitioner’s husband and now pressed into service. In fact, the entire amount due by the petitioner’s husband was repaid to the said Jonnalagadda Satyanarayana by her husband and in spite of that he got the suit filed through the plaintiff for wrongful gain. 6. No plea as such about the financial capacity of the plaintiff was taken in the written statement by the petitioner/defendant; but she admitted about the receipt of the notice issued by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is totally a stranger to the defendant and that she did not see her face at any time. In the absence of any plea as such being taken and an issue being framed about the financial capacity of the plaintiff, any evidence let in is worthless. In view of the same the discretion exercised by the learned District Judge in dismissing the interlocutory applications does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting correction by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result both the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. April 1, 2011. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 984 and 1000 of 2011 (common order) April 1, 2011.