The respondent filed O.S.No.180/2003 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 pronote. 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-1 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 I.A. 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-1 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 respondent, on the other 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.

4. Apart from being a defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2003 filed by the respondent herein, the petitioner is defendant in a.S.No.77 of 2003 filed in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, by the son of the respondent. The petitioner contends that the son of the respondent had obtained three promissory notes from him, in the context of filing income tax returns. It is also alleged that he issued a letter to the effect that the promissory notes would be used, in the context of filing income tax returns, and in case. they are not used, they would be handed over to the petitioner. The truth or otherwise of this plea needs to be decided in the respective suits.

5. The petitioner filed the original of the letter, dated 07-08-2000, in O.S.No.77 of 2003. He obtained certified copy of that letter and sought to file the same together with the identified signatures therein. The trial Court rejected the application, on two grounds.

6. The first ground is that the document was not mentioned in the written statement. In this regard, it needs to be observed that any aspect in a suit, which constitutes evidence, is not supposed to be stated in the pleadings. Order VI Rule 2 C.P.C. makes this aspect very clear. Apart from insisting that the pleadings must be concise statement of the material facts, the Rule prohibits any reference to evidence, by which the material facts are to be proved. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be countenanced.

7. The second reason assigned by the trial Court is that merely because the document is marked in a particular Court, the certified copy thereof need not be taken on its face value. While the view expressed by the trial Court on this aspect is correct, its refusal to receive the document cannot be sustained. Whenever the certified copy of a document is filed in another Court, the document would be subjected to the same tests, such as relevancy and proof. Simply because the document was received in another Court, on earlier occasion, the party is not relieved of his burden to prove the various facets of the document. However, the Court cannot refuse to receive such document, on the ground that its admissibility and relevancy is yet to b