← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRP/2653/2011dismissed no costs

K.S. Narayanamma v. Juttuka Suri Babu

2017-11-03P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2653 OF 2011 Dated:03.11.2017 Between:

K.S. Narayanamma, W/o. Papa Rao, Aged 45 years, Mid-Day-Meal Worker, Chekatlavaripeta, Gollapalem, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District .. Petitioner And Juttuka Suri Babu, S/o. Veeraraghavulu, Aged 30 years, Business, R/o. G. Mamidada, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District .. Respondent The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2653 OF 2011 ORDER:

Heard.

2.

Suit is filed for recovery of money. Respondent/Plaintiff places reliance on the alleged promissory note executed by petitioner/defendant. Petitioner disputed the signature on the pronote. Petitioner filed I.A.No.223 of 2011 to send for the document relating to opening of the petitioner's account in the State Bank of India, Gollapalem, as mentioned in the prayer and also to send for stock register relating to Mid-Day-Meal from the custody of the Headmaster, M.P. Primary School, Harijanapet. The said petition was dismissed by the order against which this revision is filed.

3.

A reading of the order of the trial Court would show that petitioner earlier filed I.A.No.116 of 2011 praying to summon Ch. Veera Venkata Satyanarayan as Court witness, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A.No.149 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the Court to obtain her specimen hand writings in open Court and then send the same along with the disputed pronote dated 10.10.2007 to the hand writing expert for the purpose of comparison. The same was also dismissed.

4.

Having regard to the earlier orders of the trial Court on the same issue, the trial Court rejected the prayer for calling for the records. Due reasons are assigned in support of the decision by

the trial Court. Hence, I do not see any perversity in the decision arrived at by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. 5.

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:03.11.2017 KH