HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.933 of 2010 Dated 29-11-2010 Between: Damodharapatruni Kaladhar. …Petitioner. And: Manapurapu Gangadharam and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.933 of 2010 ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No.367 of 2008 before the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam is petitioner herein. The present suit is filed for recovery of amounts based on a promissory note. One of the defences of the petitioner/defendant is that father-in-law of the present plaintiff had executed a letter of undertaking dated 1-3-2007. The petitioner also states that there is also another suit O.S.No.30 of 2008 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram filed for recovery of money by another plaintiff who is closely related to the present plaintiff and in that suit also, similar defence as mentioned above has been raised by the petitioner/defendant. While the present suit is coming up for defendant’s evidence, it is stated that the evidence has not yet been commenced in the other suit. Petitioner also states that he has filed the original letter of undertaking dated 1-3-2007 in O.S.No.30 of 2008 and for the purpose of marking the said document in this suit, the said original letter is required to be called for. He therefore filed the present application I.A.No.10 of 2010 seeking to call for the said document from O.S.No.30 of 2008 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner could have obtained certified copy instead of calling original document. The Court below rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that he has not substantiated any steps taken for obtaining certified copy of the said document and as such, the document cannot be summoned. Heard both sides. While on earlier occasion, learned counsel for the respondent had represented that the said document has been marked in O.S.No.30 of 2008 and there should be no difficulty for the petitioner to obtain certified copy and file the same. Today, on verification, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence has not commenced in O.S.No.30 of 2008 and the stage of marking of the said document would arrive only when the defendants leads evidence in the said suit. It is therefore apparent that the said document is not yet marked in O.S.No.30 of 2008 whereas the present suit is at the stage of defendant’s evidence where the defendant is relying upon the said document for the purpose of his defence. Since the said document is not yet marked in O.S.No.30 of 2008, the petitioner obviously cannot produce the certified copy thereof. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the petitioner’s application I.A.No.10 of 2010 to enable him to mark the said document in this suit and as soon as it is marked, he shall obtain a certified copy of the same and substitute the same in O.S.No.30 of 2008. Subject to the above, this C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 29-11-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.933 of 2010 Dated 29-11-2010