HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3648 of 2010 Between: Pyla Yesubabu … Petitioner And N.Someswara rao … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3648 of 2010 ORDER:- Petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.130 of 2007 filed this revision for revising the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Pitapuram passed in I.A.No.57 of 2010 in O.S.No.130 of 2007, dated 17.02.2010. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of amount stating that he is a resident of Tuni and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.01.2005 for family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. When the matter is posted for the evidence of the defendant, he filed the impugned I.A., to receive the documents viz., medical certificate issued by the Superintendent of Medical Board, dated 15.05.2007; Payment Ration F0L Card issued by Medical and Health Department, Golconda in the name of the defendant and his wife, dated 05.01.2004; telephone bill of the defendant; and copy of the discharge summary of the defendant issued by Seven Hills hospital, Visakhapatnam, dated 03.01.2006, contending that he is shown as a resident of Tuni, but in fact he is a native of Hyderabad and occasionally he used to visit Tuni to look after his property and to prove the said contention, the above documents are necessary. Admittedly, in the written statement he has not denied that he is a native of Tuni and that he is a native of Hyderabad. Further the lawyer’s notice and the documents sought to be filed were not pleaded in the written statement in support of his plea and the documents are of the date 05.05.2007, 05.01.2004, 13.11.2009 and 03.01.2006. Except the document pertaining to the payment of ration FOL card issued by the Medical and Health Department, dated 05.01.2004, all other documents are subsequent to the promissory note and they do not establish the nativity. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the said I.A., which do not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 20th August 2010 lmv