THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4748 & 4753 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed these two revision petitions against the orders dated 05.08.2008 passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in I.A.No.299 of 2008 and I.A.No.273 of 2008 in O.S.No.1029 of 2005, whereunder I.A.No.299 of 2008 filed under Order VIII Rule 3(5) C.P.C to receive the C.D was dismissed and I.A.No.273 of 2008 filed to receive the documents produced by the defendant was partly allowed. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of the amounts due under three promissory notes, out of which two are dated 11.02.2005 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively and the third one is dated 09.05.2005 for an amount of Rs.5,24,000/-. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. In the said written statement, while admitting about his execution of the two promissory notes on 11.02.2005, the defendant denied execution of third promissory note on 09.05.2005 for Rs.5,24,000/-. It is stated that the third promissory note was a created and fabricated one with the active connivance of the attestors and the scribe, using blank promissory note with the signature of the defendant obtained by the plaintiff through one P.Y.Babu, when he lent Rs.50,000/- to the defendant through the said P.Y.Babu and that after receipt of the legal notice dated 10.09.2005, the defendant approached G.Raghava Gupta, Chartered Accountant and informed him that the plaintiff fabricated and created the third promissory note dated 09.05.2005 for Rs.5,24,000/-, though the amount of Rs.50,000/- received under it was paid back with interest for three months by the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.299 of 2008 stating that previously some transactions were held between him and the plaintiff and that during the pendency of the suit, the conversations held between his Chartered Accountant - Raghava Gupta and the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff on 26.07.2007, 27.07.2007, 30.09.2007 and 01.10.2007 were recorded in the C.D. To show that fact, he had already submitted some of the documents and also C.D through I.A.No.273 of 2008 and on searching, another C.D was traced out and the same is also very essential to prove his case. Hence, he filed I.A.No.299 of 2008 to receive the said C.D by condoning the delay. Whereas, in I.A.No.273 of 2008 it is stated that to disprove the contents of the plaint, he is producing some documents and that earlier the said documents could not be traced out and now some how he could trace out the said documents. He has also produced the cancelled promissory notes dated 18.01.2001 and 18.11.2001, five cancelled cheques, one C.D and one phone bill. Even though the affidavit filed in I.A.No.273 of 2008 was sworn on 03.07.2008, by which date the conversations between the Chartered Accountants of the plaintiff and the defendant as aforementioned were already taken place, no reference was made to that effect in the said I.A. The specific conversation that took place during the pendency of the suit would not impeach the evidence adduced by the plaintiff for due execution of the promissory notes. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the present Interlocutory Applications are filed by the defendant only to protract the litigation. Further, the conversation, if any, said to have taken place between the Chartered Accountants of the plaintiff and the defendant is a privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and the same cannot be revealed by the defendant without consent of the plaintiff. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 21.04.2011 va