HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2669 and 2010 DT.02.07.2010 Chavvakula Ananda Sudhakar Babu …Petitioner V. Karri Padma Sekhara Reddy ..Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2669 and 2010 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru filed this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the orders dated 9-12-2009 passed in I.A.No.198 of 2009 in OS No.73 of 2006. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit, i.e., O.S.No.73 of 2006 for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note. He filed I.A.No.198 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 2006 under Order 13 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for issuing summons to Dr.G.Vijayakumar Sarma, Lecturer, Animal Husbandry Training Center, Mandapeta to testify about the receipt of casual leave letters and to speak about personal registers maintained for the respondent/defendant to prove Ex.P1 promissory note executed by the respondent. The same was contested by the respondent by filing detailed counter stating that the documents, sought to be summoned, are not public documents and they are only casual leave letters written in the usual course of employment and hence they cannot be summoned to compare the handwriting of the respondent with the promissory note in question. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, who is contesting the suit, denied the execution of promissory note. As there are no attestors to the promissory note and as the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant in his own handwriting, by filling up the blanks in the printed promissory note form, it is necessary to get the writing of the defendant on the promissory note compared with the admitted writing of the defendant. For the said purpose, the above petition, for summoning the Lecturer to testify about the receipt of casual leave letters and to speak about personal registers maintained by the respondent, came to be filed. The trial court dismissed the said petition holding that the alleged documents are for the purpose of comparison by this Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and since the promissory Note is not compulsorily attestable document, no useful purpose would be served if the petition is allowed. It is not in dispute, the casual leave letters written by the respondent are not pubic documents and hence, the summons cannot be issued to Sri G.Vijaya Kumar, to testify about the receipt of casual leave letters and to speak about the personal registers maintained for the respondent to prove Ex.P1. No infirmity is discernible with the impugned order warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 2nd July 2010 lmv