THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1488 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2005 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge, Nellore, aggrieved by order, dated 07.04.2011, passed in I.A.No.446 of 2011. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.Nos.18 and 19 of 2005 for recovery of money based on pro-notes. In the said suits, the defence of the petitioner/defendant is that the plaintiffs are her friends and she was borrowing petty amounts from them and she did not borrow the suit amounts from the plaintiffs. It was her specific case that the signed blank pro-notes were tampered and the suits have been filed. The said suits were clubbed for hearing evidence, evidence was closed therein and the matter was posted for arguments. Finally, it was adjourned to 31.03.2011 for judgment. At that stage, I.A.No.446 of 2011 was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to summon the Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.1 of Nellore Town to produce income-tax assessment statements of the petitioner for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and to give evidence. It is the case of the petitioner that as she did not show receipt of such amounts in the Income Tax returns that will support her case. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the petitioner neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence about submitting of income-tax returns. The suits are of 2005 and the evidence of the petitioner was closed more than a year back. In view of the same, had the petitioner wanted to rely on such returns, nothing prevented her from obtaining certified copies thereof and to file the same at the relevant point of time. Once the matter is coming up for arguments, it appears, I.A.No.446 of 2011 was filed only to protract the litigation. In view of the reasoned order passed by the Court below, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in ADDAGATLA NARENDER v. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI[1], having regard to the facts of the case, the ratio laid down in the said order would not render any support to the case of the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th APRIL, 2011. kvni [1] 2006(3) ALT 422