HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1078 OF 2009 DATE:29-07-2011 BETWEEN Bandarupalli Devadanam …Petitioner AND Bandarupalli Bhushanam …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1078 OF 2009 ORDER: Defendant filed this revision to revise the orders of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 11.2.2009 dismissing I.A.No.1823 of 2008 in O.S.No.484 of 2007 filed under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. to receive the additional written statement. Plaintiff-respondent herein instituted the above suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note. Pending the suit, petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. stating that the plaintiff-respondent herein has not served the copy of suit promissory note along with the plaint and after some time, the counsel for the plaintiff served the suit promissory note copy which was typed on non-judicial stamped paper worth of Rs.100/-. On the said copy, there is no revenue stamp underneath the document with the signature of the petitioner herein, and therefore, the same is inadmissible under law and on that ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. Plaintiff-respondent herein filed counter affidavit denying the said allegations and contended that the suit promissory note engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper is perfectly maintainable. The lower Court after considering the rival contentions, particularly para 30 of page 4 of written statement, wherein the petitioner stated that the plaintiff furnished the copy of the suit promissory note along with the plaint, held that there is inconsistency of pleadings of the petitioner. With regard to the objection of the petitioner as to the inadmissibility of the suit promissory note, it was held that admissibility of the promissory note engrossed on a non- judicial stamp paper is perfectly maintainable, and that the objection as to the admissibility of the document is to be taken before marking of the document, but the trial is started and the suit is coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1 and therefore, at that stage, the petitioner cannot raise such objection and accordingly dismissed the impugned I.A. As there was no representation on the last occasion, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for orders’. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Further, this Court while issuing notice before admission on 6.3.2009 granted interim stay for a period of four weeks subject to condition that if the petitioner fails to serve notice on the respondent, the stay should stand vacated. However, the said stay has been extended by two more weeks on 2.4.2009 and thereafter, it has not been extended. On 27.4.2011 learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the sole petitioner is no more and he sought time for taking steps to get the legal representatives impleaded. But so far, he has not filed any such application nor there was any representation on his behalf. Hence, the revision is dismissed as abated. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 29, 2011 Tsr.