IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4580 and 4581 of 2010 Between: Kothem Yesu Venkata Ratnam. … Petitioner And Posina Thirupatayya … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4580 and 4581 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- Petitioner/defendant filed these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution, for revising the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in dismissing I.A.Nos.1020 and 1019 of 2010 in O.S.No.143 of 2007, dated 14.09.2010. In a suit filed for recovery of the amount based on a promissory note, petitioner after filing the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and when it is coming for his cross-examination, he filed I.A.No.1019 of 2010 to receive the additional chief affidavit of the petitioner and I.A.No.1020 of 2010 to receive the documents viz., check slip along with tour dairy for the month of October, 2004 and a certificate issued by the president of Pothuluru village, and to mark the same. In the written statement what the defendant pleaded is that he never met the plaintiff at any point of time and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of anybody on 05.10.2004 or at any point of time. The suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing of the suit. There is no plea to the said effect that on the relevant date of execution of the promissory note he was not in the village and he was on official duty. Added to the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No.517 of 2010 to receive one document and the said petition was allowed. After the said I.A. is allowed, he filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. When it is coming for his cross-examination, the above two I.As are filed. There is no explanation by the petitioner for not filing the said documents before the court along with I.A.No.517 of 2010. In the affidavit filed it is also stated that at the time of execution of the suit promissory note he was at Vakapalli and Pothuluru villages on his official duty for recovery of loans. To prove the same the above documents are sought to be marked. Further, the check slip filed by the petitioner is issued by the Executive Engineer, A.P.State Housing Corporation, Peddapuram, whereas the other document i.e., the letter addressed by the Assistant Engineer, A.P.State Housing Corporation, Prathipadu is issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pothuluru on 05.10.2004, which itself shows that the document was created and was pressed into service with anti-date to prolong the litigation. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the trial court in dismissing I.As., does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 22nd October 2010 lmv