HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5537 of 2009 Date: January 21, 2010 Between: Soma Venkatachalam, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Sr. Clerk in Forest Department, R/o.H.No.25-4-410, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal District. … Petitioner And Smt. S. Padma, W/o. Prabhakar, age: 42 years, Occ: Household work, R/o.H.No.25-4-409, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal District, and four others … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order 16-09-2009 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.1003 of 2002. During chief-examination of D.W.1, a certified copy of the affidavit filed by P.W.1 earlier in the suit and a certified copy of the deposition of P.W.1 in C.C.No.1169 of 2002 was sought to be marked. At that stage, on behalf of the first respondent-plaintiff, objections were raised for marking of such documents. The court below, by the impugned order, upheld the objections raised on behalf of the first respondent-plaintiff and posted the matter for further examination of D.W.1. Though there is service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent. In this writ petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, to prove certain contradictions to the case of the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner deposed in C.C.No.1169 of 2002 and also filed affidavit at first instance; as such, certified copies of the same were taken and the said documents were sought to be exhibited on behalf of the petitioner-defendant during the course of his examination. It is submitted that, without recording valid reasons, the court below has upheld the objections. With reference to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noted that the documents which are sought to be marked are the affidavit and deposition of a living person. In that view of the matter, while it is open to use such document to confront with the attempts during the course of examination of such witness, but, the petitioner cannot exhibit certified copies of affidavit and deposition in C.C.No.1169 of 2002. In view of the reasons recorded by the court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J January 21, 2010 MRR