HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.5415 & 5462 of 2010 Date: June 6, 2011 Between: Atchi Ramanaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged 53 years, Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.25-1/714, First Lane, Lakshmi Narasimhapuram, Podalakur Road, Nellore … Petitioner And Dr.M.Ravindranath Reddy, S/o.Ramana Reddy, aged 51 years, Occ:Associate Professor, R/o.16-11- 540, Surbhi Ramaiah Street, Sankara Agraaram, Nellore … Respondent Common Order: As these two revision petitions arise out of two interlocutory applications in the very same suit in O.S.No.109 of 2008 on the file of the learned Vth Additional District Judge, SPSR Nellore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Challenge in these revision petitions is to the orders dated 06-08-2010, passed in I.A.Nos.638 of 2010 and 686 of 2010 respectively. The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the defendant in the aforesaid suit, which is filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of money. In the plaint, it is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that, demanding money, notice was got issued to the petitioner through his counsel, but the petitioner denied receipt of any such notice. In view of the same, the respondent-plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Postal authorities whether the notice got issued by him was delivered to the petitioner, to which the counsel of the respondent-plaintiff received a complaint settled reply dated 19-10-2009 from Inspector (Complaints) Nellore stating that the registered letter was delivered to the petitioner on 26-07-2008. As the letter dated 19-10-2009 was obtained by the respondent-plaintiff after closure of evidence, he filed two interlocutory applications, i.e. I.A.No.638 of 2010 to recall the evidence of P.W.1 and I.A.No.686 of 2010 to permit him to mark letter dated 19-10-2009. As the said applications are allowed by the court below, the petitioner has come up with these revision petitions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the document which is sought to be marked is not referred to in the plaint. Further, it is stated that the provision which is referred to in the impugned order cannot be applied for grant of relief prayed by the respondent and no valid reasons are recorded for allowing the applications filed by the respondent. In this case, it is not in dispute that the respondent- plaintiff has referred to the notice which was got issued through his counsel to the petitioner. The respondent had to get the said letter from the Postal authorities in view of the denial of the petitioner in the written statement that he had received any notice. As much as issuance of notice is referred to in the plaint, it cannot be said that there is no reference to the letter issued by the Postal authorities, so as to disallow the respondent from marking such document. Undisputedly, the letter in question came to be issued on the application made by the respondent in view of the stand of the petitioner in the written statement that he did not receive any notice; as such, there was no cause of action to refer to such letter in the plaint. In any event, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by allowing such letter to be marked as evidence, as the same is issued by a Public Authority. Though detailed reasons have not been recorded/indicated in the impugned order, I have also gone through the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the applications. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of the court below to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 6, 2011 MRR