HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.2423, 2430 and2630 of 2010 DT.25-6-2010 CRP No.2423 of 2010 Chavvakula Ananda Sudhakar Babu …Petitioner V. Karri Padma Sekhara Reddy ..Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.2423, 2430 and2630 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The plaintiff in OS No.73/2006 and OS No.74/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru filed these three revision petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders dt. 9- 12-2009 passed in IA Nos.197/2009 in OS No.73/2006 and IA Nos.200 and 201 of 2009 in OS No.74/2006 respectively. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the above suits, ie., OS Nos.73/2006 and 74/2006 for recovery of the amount due under the pronotes. He filed IA No. 197/2009 in OS No.73/2006 under Order 13 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC for issuing summons to Principal, Animal Husbandry Training Center, Mandapeta for production of casual leave letters written in Telugu by the respondent/defendant for the years 2003 to 2007 and for production of personal registered maintained by the respondent/defendant for the years 2003 to 2007. He also IA No.200/2009 in OS No.74/2006 seeking the same relief as claimed in IA No.197/2009. He also filed IA No.201/2009 in OS No.74/2006 under Order 13 Rule 10 and 151 CPC for issuing summons to Dr. G. Vijayakumar Sarma, lecturer, Animal Husbandry Training Center, Mandapeta to testify him bout the receipt of casual leave letters and to speak about personal registers maintained by the respondents/defendant to prove the pronote executed by the respondent/defendant. The same were contested by the respondent/defendant by filing detailed separate counters stating that documents, sought to be summoned, are not public documents and they are only casual leave letters written in the usual course of employment and since they are not public documents, they cannot be summoned to compare the handwriting of the respondent/defendant with the pronotes in question. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who is contesting the suits denied the execution of promissory notes. As there are no attestors to the promissory notes and as the suit promissory notes were executed by the defendant in his own hand by filling up the blanks in the printed promissory note forms, it is necessary to get the writing of the defendant on the promissory notes compared with the admitted writing of the defendant. For the said purpose, the above petitions, for summoning the documents mentioned therein, came to be filed. The trial court dismissed the said petitions by separate orders holding that the documents, namely, casual leave letters and personal registers sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff are not public documents; the court can compare the handwriting of the respondent/defendant on the promissory notes with the admitted handwriting under Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act and no purpose would be served if the petitions are allowed. It is not in dispute, the casual leave letters written by the respondent/defendant are not pubic documents and they cannot be summoned to compare with the handwriting on the promissory notes. No infirmity is discernible in the impugned orders warranting interference by this court. All the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:25-6-2010 kmr