CHANDABOLU BHASKARA RAO Vs. BETHA SAIDI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by the revision petitioner in his favour, revision petitioner filed petitions to receive the xerox copy of the suit promissory note and to permit him to lead evidence in respect of the xerox copy of the suit promissory note filed by him. The learned Judge while allowing the petition to receive the document dismissed the petition seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the suit promissory note. Hence this revision is filed.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner is that as no attestors were present at the time of execution of the suit promissory note, and since the suit promissory note filed into Court by the respondent-plaintiff contains the attestation of two attestors, it is clear that the suit promissory note is materially altered and so, in orderto establish that the suit promissory note is materially altered by obtaining the signatures of two persons as its attestors, it is necessary to permit the revision petitioner to adduce evidence in that regard and that the trial Court which received the xerox copy of the suit promissory note - not containing the signatures of any attestors, was in error in not permitting the revision petitioner to lead evidence in respect of that xerox copy.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since essential ingredients for leading secondary evidence are not established by the revision petitioner, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.