D V MURALIKRISHNA RAO Vs. CH GOPALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S. No. 18 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, against the petitioner, for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- , on the strength of a pro-note. The petitioner opposed the suit, by denying his liability. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence on behalf of the respondent is said to have been concluded. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.133 of 2005 under Order XIII Rule 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to file certified copy of a letter, said to have been issued to him by the son of the respondent herein. It was pleaded that the said letter is the certified copy of Ex.B.l in O.S.No.77 of 2003 filed by the son of the respondent herein against the petitioner. Through order, dated 12-4-2005, the trial Court rejected the LA. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the reasons assigned by the trial Court, while rejecting the application, cannot be supported in law. He contends that the document, which is sought to be filed, is a piece of evidence, and it is not necessary that it must have been referred to in the written statement. He further contends that though the said document is a certified copy of Ex.B.l in another suit, its relevancy and proof must be tested once again, in the present suit.

(3.) Sri K. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel for the responded, on the order hand, submits that the petitioner failed to file the said document, either when he filed the written statement or when the issues were framed and that no explanation was offered for the delay. He further contends that the respondent is not a party to the document and as such, it cannot be received in the evidence, in the instant suit.