THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1768 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.No.130 of 2009 in O.S.No.233 of 2006 dated 24.02.2009. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.233 of 2006. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount, in excess of Rs.3,00,000/-, based on a promissory note. After pleadings were completed and issues framed, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2. Thereafter, the first petitioner herein examined himself as D.W.1. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) CPC to receive an agreement dated 05.12.2007, said to have been executed between them and P.W.2, and to condone the delay in filing the said document. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the petitioners stated that they had issued demand drafts in favour of the husband of P.W.2 for Rs.5,00,000/-. On the plea that this document was not filed in time the Court below was requested to condone the delay and receive the said document. A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff denying the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. The respondent contended that the petitioners were introducing an entirely new version which would completely change their defence and that there was no merit in the application. The Court below observed that the document sought to be filed was admittedly between P.W.2 and the defendants and not between the plaintiff and the defendants; that the relevancy of the document was not disclosed even prima facie and that the name of the plaintiff was nowhere to be found in the said document. The Court below further observed that the document sought to be filed was neither mentioned in the written statement nor was it referred to in the cross- examination of P.W.2 and, since the document did not relate to the case on hand and the plaintiff was not a party thereto, the petition filed by them was liable to be dismissed. Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, while the written statement was filed in February, 2006, this agreement dated 05.12.2007 was entered into much later and, as such, could not have been filed or referred to in the written statement filed earlier. Even if that were to be so, as rightly observed by the Court below, the respondent-plaintiff is not even a party nor does her name find mention in the document sought to be received in evidence. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference in revision proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni