IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRAKUMAR Civil Revision Petition No.5812 of 2009 Between: Kovvuri Surareddy .. Petitioner AND Karri Krupanadhareddy .. Respondents ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 05-11-2009 in I.A.No.928 of 2009 in O.S.No.391 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein filed a suit basing on a promissory note said to have been executed at Srikakulam by the petitioner herein on 16-06-2005. The petitioner had taken a specific plea that he had never executed the said promissory note and that he is resident of Visakhapatnam and hails from East Godavari District and that he never visited Srikakulam at any time during his life time and that he had no acquaintance with the attestors or the scribe of the said promissory note. It is also his specific case that the respondent-plaintiff is a resident of old Resapuvanipalem village in Visakhapatnam and that he shifted his family to Visakhapatnam and he is residing at Visakhapatnam and that the plaintiff has also never resided at Srikakulam. Thus specific stand of the petitioner is that the promissory note was never executed at Srikakulam and that it is a rank forgery. During the pendency of the proceedings, he filed I.A.No.928 of 2009 in O.S.No.391 of 2007 praying to receive certain documents including the copy of the decree and the judgment in O.S.No.533 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and some other documents. The respondents filed his counter wherein he stated that the certified copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.533 of 2006 is concerning the transaction of the suit in the year 1998 and the said suit was filed in the year 2006. Thus, it appears that the genuineness or otherwise of those documents were not disputed by the respondent-plaintiff. Any how, the Court below, holding that those documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the main issue in the suit, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document will show that the plaintiff is resident of Visakhapatnam and they are necessary to show that the plaintiff never resided in Srikakulam. It is also his submission that these documents clearly show the discrepancy in the name of the plaintiff and they are necessary for the just conclusion of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. The point for consideration is whether those documents are necessary for the just conclusion of the case? Admittedly, the petitioner-defendant has taken a specific stand that he never resided at Srikakulam and that the plaintiff has also never resided at Srikakulam and that the promissory note was never executed at Srikakulam and that there is a discrepancy in the name of the plaintiff as shown in the present suit and in the earlier suit filed by him. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent-plaintiff goes to show that he signed as Karri Krupananda Reddy in Telugu. However, in O.S.No.533 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, the signature is in English as K. Ananda Reddy. In the above circumstances, it appears that the documents filed by the petitioner-defendant are necessary for determining the issue whether the parties ever resided at Srikakulam or not and whether there is any person called Karri Krupananda Reddy and whether the suit promissory note is genuine one or not. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05-11-2009 in I.A.No.928 of 2009 in O.S.No.391 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and consequently, I.A.No.928 of 2009 in O.S.No.391 of 2007 stands allowed. In the above circumstances, no order as to costs. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 01-07-2011 Ksn