THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3602 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 12.06.2009, in I.A.No.791 of 2009 in O.S.No.187 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioner/defendant No.1 to receive documents mentioned in the petition by condoning the delay in filing the same, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not explained as to how those documents are helpful or relevant in a suit based on a Promissory Note. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 contended that the relevancy of those documents can be considered at a later point of time; that because of acquaintance with respondent No.1/plaintiff, certain sale deeds were executed and to show the acquaintance between the petitioner and respondent No.1, those documents are necessary and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory in jurisdiction. The suit is based on a Promissory Note. The petitioner admitted the signatures on the Promissory Note. But, his contention is that respondent No.1 obtained his signatures on a blank Promissory Note. Therefore, the question to be decided in the suit is whether the said Promissory Note was supported by consideration and, if so, whether it was executed by the petitioner. No doubt, the admissibility and relevancy of a document can be decided at a later point of time, but, at the same time, at the stage of receipt of documents, the petitioner must show prima facie that the documents now sought to be received are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit. The affidavit filed in support of the petition did not reveal as to how the said documents are prima facie relevant for the purpose of proving the case of the petitioner/defendant No.1. Furthermore, no averments have been made in the written statement on this aspect. In the absence of proper explanation, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 21, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3602 OF 2009 Between: Baisetti Satyanarayana .....PETITIONER AND Chilaka Veera Venkata Naga Ramalinga Sridhara Rao and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3602 OF 2009 October 21, 2010