THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4512 of 2010 DATE: 07th APRIL, 2011 Between: Achuktla Ismail … Petitioner A n d Malreddigari Umadevi … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4512 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 26-08-2010 in I.A.No.337 of 2010 in O.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur whereunder and whereby the application filed to receive the slip as exhibit produced by D.W.2 was dismissed. 2. When D.W.2 was in the witness box, a question was put to him whether he was having a pocket notebook. While removing notebook from his pocket, D.W.2 took out the ATM card containing a slip. Since the witness voluntarily removed his ATM Card containing the slip, the petitioner sought permission of Court to mark the slip as exhibit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the witness voluntarily produced the ATM Card containing the slip, the slip has to be marked which is relevant in deciding the issue in the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same on the ground that the witness D.W.2 has not produced the slip voluntarily, but while removing the ATM card, it contained the slip and therefore, it is not relevant at all; that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. D.W.2 was summoned as a witness and while he was under examination, a question was put to him whether he was having any pocket notebook. At that time, the witness voluntarily removed the ATM Card which contained the slip, and the said slip was sought to be marked as an exhibit by the petitioner by filing application under Section 151 C.P.C, the same was dismissed on the ground that there are other modes of procedure to prove the handwriting of the witness. Because the slip was found in the pocket of the witness, he has to give an explanation whether it contained his signature or handwriting. He is the proper person to speak about its contents. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have received the slip as an exhibit through D.W.2 who is competent person to speak about the same. The relevancy and admissibility of the same will come into picture at later stage. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 26-08-2010 in I.A.No.337 of 2010 in O.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. However, receipt of the slip is subject to relevancy, admissibility and proof that may be decided by the trial Court. Since the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 07th April, 2011 Ksm/Hsd