THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.4072, 4073 and 4074 of 2011 Date of Order: 23-09-2011 Between: 1. M/s. Nava Bharat Spun Pipes Company and others ..Petitioners and 1. G.Suryanarayana Raju and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4072, 4073 and 4074 of 2011 Common order: All these revisions arise out of the very same suit; hence, they are heard together for admission and disposed of by this common order. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit—O.S.No.1097 of 2004 for recovery of amount Rs.3,31,473/- with interest based on pronote stating that defendant No.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,39,321/- agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 15% per annum, in which the third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by others defendants, denying the plaint averments and execution of pronote. It is admitted that the 2nd defendant and defendants 3 to 5 entered into partnership Firm on 01-04- 1996; that the 2nd defendant was the Managing Partner and the 3rd defendant is the executive partner and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the partners of the 1st defendant Firm that the business was carried on till 31-03-2000; that the 2nd defendant, who took the assistance of his son—Murthy Raju, prevented the other defendants from looking after the business affairs and he has not tendered any accounts and information thereby committed malpractice and misappropriation of funds. In view of the same, the other defendants filed criminal compliant against the 2nd defendant and his son before the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Mangalagiri. When the 2nd defendant tried to hurt the defendants 3 and 4, the 4th defendant lodged a report to the Tadepalli police Station which was registered as Cr.No.76 of 2003. As a counter blast to the same, the 2nd defendant lodged a compliant against defendants 3 and 4. Basing on the same the police registered a case in Cr.No.77 of 2003. When the above cases are pending, with the intervention of elders and well wishers the 2nd defendant executed a retirement deed, evidencing his retirement from the partnership Firm and the defendants 3 to 5 to carry on the business in the name of the 1st defendant—Firm. Since from the retirement the 2nd defendant is not in management and on 27-02-2002 he issued a receipt to the 1st defendant—Firm for the amounts due to the creditors to which the plaintiff issued a discharge letter. Even assuming that the suit debt alleged to be due to the plaintiff is true, it was brought into existence subsequent to the retirement of the 2nd defendant on 27-02-2002, as he cannot be said to have any authority to incur debt on behalf of 1st defendant—Firm or its partners. Defendant No.3 filed affidavit in lieu of chief- examination and also filed I.A.No.352 of 2009 to receive the documents stating that the documents enclosed to the petition are relevant for the suit and they cannot be filed along with written statement as they are not in his custody and the documents are crucial and essential for the purpose of adjudication of the matter, which was allowed on 17-06-2009. After allowing the said petition he was examined further. After the suit was posted for arguments he filed IA Nos.131 and 132 of 2011 to recall D.W.2 for cross-examination and to reopen the suit for the purpose of cross-examination which were allowed on 07-02-2011. Even by the date of filing the application to recall D.W.2, the documents enclosed with the petition (I.A.No.1379 of 2010) are in possession of 3rd defendant. After recalling and re-examination of D.W.1 again when the matter is posted for arguments, impugned I.A.Nos.1377 of 2011 to reopen the evidence of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 side; 1378 of 2011 to recall D.W.1 and 1379 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the documents. The documents, which are filed along with the petition, are: 1. Letter dated 20-09-2002 addressed by defendant No.3 as Managing Partner of Nava Bharath Spun Pipes Company to the 2nd defendant. 2. Certified copy of the letter dated 23-10-2002 addressed by defendant No.3 as Managing Partner of Nava Bharath Spun Pipes Company to the 2nd defendant. 3. Certified copy of the registered letter dated 10-01- 2003 addressed by defendant No.3 to the Manager State Bank of India, Vijayawada. 4. Certified copy of the postal acknowledgement. 5. Certified copy of the statement of account of defendant No.3 in HDFC bank from 07-04-2004 to 01-07-2004 and 6. Certified copy of receipt given by defendant No.2. Absolutely, in the written statement there is no plea with regard to the documents except stating that the 2nd defendant executed retirement deed dated 02-04-2004. It is well settled in the absence of any plea taken with regard to part payments; the evidence let in is worth less and cannot be made as evidence without any pleading. Further, the conduct of the 3rd petitioner also disentitles him for seeking to receive the documents for the reason, copy application for the documents before the Munsif Magistrate was filed on 21-09-2010 and copies of the documents were delivered on 24-09-2010. After the suit was posted for arguments on 22-11-2010, I.A.Nos.131 and 132 of 2011, to recall D.W.2 for cross-examination and to reopen the suit for the purpose of cross- examination, were filed, which were allowed on 07-02-2011; on the said date also the petitioners have not filed the application to receive the documents and after examination of D.W.2 the present applications are filed which is nothing but to protract the matter. The orders passed by the lower court do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 23-09-2011 Murthy