HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2433 and 2534 of 2010 Date: July 26, 2011 Between: Bitla Vijayalaxmi, W/o.Sampath, Aged about 33 years, Occ:Tailor, R/o.Kothawada, Warangal District … Petitioner And Maraboina Bhagyalaxmi, W/o.Venkateshwarlu, age 43 years, Occ:employee, R/o.Kothawada, Warangal … Respondent Common Order: Since these revision petitions arise out of two different applications in the very same suit in O.S.No.233 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Challenge in these revision petitions is to the common order dated 19.04.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2010 in the aforesaid suit. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the suit, which is filed for recovery of money based on the promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the respondent on 10.07.2004 and 06.11.2004. Evidence on the respondent’s side is completed. Petitioner herein was examined as D.W.1. On the application of the respondent, the Secretary of Padmashali Seva Sangham, Kothawada, was summoned and was examined as D.W.2. At that stage, the respondent herein filed two applications, i.e. I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2010. I.A.No.8 of 2010 is filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to permit her to lead secondary evidence with regard to documents, viz., letter issued by Padmashali Seva Sangham on 04.06.2006, letter addressed by her to the said Sangham on 03.06.2006, promissory notes dated 10.07.2004 for Rs.1,00,000/-, 06.11.2004 for Rs.51,000/-, and 15.05.2005 for Rs.70,000/-. I.A.No.9 of 2010 is filed to recall D.W.1 for marking such documents. The Court below, by the impugned order, allowed the said applications. Hence, the present revision petitions. It is submitted by Sri Udayachal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2010 are allowed permitting the respondent herein to lead secondary evidence and to recall D.W.1 for marking the documents, in absence of complying the requirements as contemplated under 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. He would further submit that, to fill up lacunas in the evidence, such applications are filed at this belated stage; in spite of the same, they were allowed by the Court below without valid reasons. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that, in the written statement itself it is clearly stated that the respondent had approached the local Padmashali Seva Sangham by submitting photocopies of the promissory notes, in which it is clearly mentioned that the amount is relating to chit; in view of the stand taken by the respondent in the suit itself and as the documents are not in possession of the respondent, the Court below has rightly allowed the applications. It is to be noticed that though the suit claim is based on the alleged promissory notes executed by the respondent, it is the consistent plea of the respondent that she has not borrowed the amount and did not also execute any promissory notes. It is further her case that the petitioner is an un-licenced money lender, doing business in private chits and in that connection she has collected blank promissory notes from the members who joined in such chits. I have perused a copy of the written statement. The defence of the respondent in the written statement, which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of these revision petitions, reads as under: “This defendant submits that prior to filing the suit the plaintiff had approached the local Padmasali Seva Sangham and complained against this defendant, as she was irregular in paying the chit installments by submitting the Xerox copy of the pronotes in which it was clearly mentioned the amount is relating to chit. This defendant is herewith filing the said blank pronotes for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court, in which the Hon’ble Court may observe the unfilled columns of the pronotes and it can be also observed as the scribe of the pronotes is none other than the husband of the plaintiff.” It is also relevant to note that on the application filed by the respondent, the President of the Padmashali Seva Sangham was summoned and examined as D.W.2. In view of the defence of the respondent in the written statement coupled with her plea in the affidavits filed in support of the present applications, it cannot be said that respondent has not complied the requirements under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. As it is clearly stated that the respondent has approached the Padmashali Seva Sangham, which in turn addressed letter to her along with copies of promissory notes, it is evident that such documents are not in possession of the respondent; in which event, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order allowing the respondent to lead secondary evidence with regard to the documents in question and to recall D.W.1. In any event, having regard to the defence of the respondent in the suit, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if such applications are allowed. In that view of the matter, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil revision petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 26, 2011 MRR