HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1155 OF 2010 Dated: 19.3.2010 Between: P. Jagadeshwar ..Petitioner And 1. P. Lakshmi Bai and others. .. Respondents This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1155 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 9.2.2010 in I.A.No.2955 of 2009 in O.S.No.7 of 2005 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the above application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to play the audio CD while cross-examining D.W.2. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff is as follows: He filed the suit against the defendants for partition of the schedule properties. D.W.2 is creating disputes among the family members and taking advantage of the same, he compels one of the parties to sell the property to third parties being arranged by him and he also created some documents and that the plaintiff recorded the conversation in between his wife, D.W.2 and himself in the form of audio CD and the same was kept for the purpose of confrontation at the time of cross-examination of D.W.2 and the said CD is relevant for the purpose of proving the role played by D.W.2 in the transaction pertaining to item No.1 of the schedule property. The Court below dismissed the above application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the suit is filed for partition of the properties. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.2, the counsel for the petitioner tried to introduce the audio CD. On the objection raised by the Court below, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the above application. The issue involved in the suit is as to the partition of the schedule property. D.W.2 is not a party to the suit. In a case of this nature, the question as to whether the said CD is relevant for adjudication of the issue, is in the domain of the trial Court. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the observations made by the Court below are convincing and they do not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 19th March, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1155 OF 2010 19.03.2010