THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. 5373 of 2008 Dated. 01–07-2010 Between: Mr. Bolla Mokhalingam …Petitioner Vs. Regional Manager, Volters Limited, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5373 of 2008 Oral Order: Heard Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanoori, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Raj Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent. This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution by the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 120 of 2005 filed by the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs. 93,680/- on the basis of a promissory note. According to the revision petitioner qua his written statement in the suit, he did not borrow the suit amount nor executed the suit promissory note. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that the 2nd respondent forged the suit promissory note on blank papers and affixed the revenue stamp thereon with the signatures of the revision petitioner. The trial of the suit had commenced and the plaintiff’s side evidence closed. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 222 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the leave of the Court to receive certain documents in evidence and mark them as exhibits on his behalf. The documents, receipt of which is prayed in I.A.No. 222 of 2008, are – (a) office copy of a complaint dated 24-04-2004 purported to have been made by the revision petitioner to the Station House Officer, Kukatpally, Hyderabad; (b) office copy of another complaint dated 20- 11-2005 made to the same authority; and (c) a pay slip given by the Voltas Limited, Hyderabad in respect of the revision petitioner, for the month of December, 2004. Leave for receiving and marking of these documents was sought on the plea that on the alleged date of execution of the suit promissory note, neither he nor his wife had visited Pathapatnam, even for a period of six to seven years prior to the filing of the suit or the date of the alleged execution of the suit promissory note i.e., 11-12-2004, but were in Hyderabad, to establish which fact the pay slip is proposed to be filed and marked. The two complaints were allegedly made by the petitioner to the Station House Officer, Kukatpally complaining of blank signed papers obtained by the plaintiff from the revision petitioner, which were allegedly used to fabricate the suit promissory note. By the order impugned, the Court below rejected I.A.No. 222 of 2008 on the ground that the documents are not relevant to the defendant’s case nor pertain to the facts in issue in the case. The reasoning of the Court below is erroneous and unsustainable. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner-defendant that he did not execute the suit promissory note and alternatively that the plaintiff had forged the revision petitioner’s signature on the suit promissory note on the basis of signed blank papers obtained from him by the plaintiff, earlier. If that be the revision petitioner’s case in the written statement as it undisputedly is, then the revision petitioner is entitled to marshal such documentary or oral evidence as he considers appropriate. No doubt, the revision petitioner failed to file copies of the alleged complaints made to the police along with written statement, but did mention about the police complaints in the written statement. In the circumstances, the documents, the marking of which is sought in I.A.No. 222 of 2008, are relevant to the petitioner’s defense in the suit and are not irrelevant or extraneous as held by the Court below. What is the probative value of these documents, is a matter to be considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit. That aspect is however not germane at the time of considering the application – I.A.No. 222 of 2008. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is allowed. I.A.No. 222 of 2008 in O.S.No. 120 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, is also allowed. The order dated 30-10-2008 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam in I.A.No. 222 of 2008 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 01-07-2010 Pvks