S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, guntur in I. A. No. 243 of 2001 in O. S. No. 1095 of 1995, dated 23-2-2001. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the Petitioner/plaintiff, he filed the suit for recovery of certain amount under the promissory note said to have been executed by Defendants 1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed the above IA under order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure to recall P. W. 1 for the purpose of marking the deposition of the 2nd defendant, which was recorded in O. S. No. Ill of 1988, which was instituted by the defendants against the present Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, the second defendant was examined as P. W. 1 in that suit, where she has admitted the execution of the suit promissory note as well as passing of the consideration under it. In that view of the matter it is necessary to file the said deposition and mark the same as an exhibit in this suit. ( 3 ) THIS was opposed by the Respondents/defendants. ( 4 ) THE Court below after considering the rival contentions having felt that the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian evidence Act have no application to the present situation, rejected the application. Hence the present revision. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below erred in rejecting the application for making the deposition of the 2nd Defendant as an exhibit. It is contended that the suit is filed for recovery of money basing on promissory note executed by the Defendants. Though the evidence on Plaintiff s side was over, insofar as the Defendants are concerned, no evidence was adduced and none of the defendants have gone into witness box. Therefore, it is necessary to file the deposition of the 2nd Defendant, which was recorded in the other connected suit- o. S. No. 111 of 1998, where the 2nd defendant has admitted about the execution of the suit promissory note as well as borrowal of the amount. Therefore, the court below, however, was not justified in rejecting the said application on the ground that the claim of the Plaintiff would not come within the provisions of Section 33 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the court below, however, was not justified in rejecting the said application on the ground that the claim of the Plaintiff would not come within the provisions of Section 33 of the Evidence Act. The learned Counsel also contended that in view of the admissions made by the 2nd Defendant it is absolutely necessary, as it would reduce the burden of the Plaintiff also to prove the execution of the document, Hence, sought for a direction. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in ali Muhammad Khan v. Maharaj Bepar ditkhiram Dev. v. Mrityunjoy Prasad; and the decisions of Apex Court in Union of India v. Moksh Builders and Financiers and v. M. Mathew v. V. S. Sharma. Therefore it is contended that in the light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court, especially in the case of Union of India v. Moksh Builders and Financiers it was contended that the revision petition is liable to be allowed. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order of the Court below. The learned counsel also contended that originally the claim of the Plaintiff was that there was a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in pursuance of the borrowal of the amount, apart from the execution of the promissory note. The said mortgage was disputed by he defendants and in fact a suit has been filed in O. S-No. Ill of 1988 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Defendants herein holding that there is no mortgage. Thereafter, though the suit pronote was executed in the year 1985, the present suit is filed in the year 1995, long after the limitation period. Further in order to save the limitation the Plaintiff filed the present application making allegations for exclusion of the period of time that had taken in deciding the suit O. S. No. 111 of 1988 and accordingly the present application is filed for marking the deposition of the 2nd defendant herein in O. S. No. 111 of 1988, as an exhibit in the present suit alleging that there were admissions made by her in the earlier suit when she was examined, about the suit promissory note. The learned counsel also contended that the provisions of Section 33 of Evidence Act would not attract to the case of the parties and applies only to the witnesses, and the Court below has rightly rejected the said application. Therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, especially in the light of the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Moksh Builders and Financiers (3 supra) that the petition is liable to be allowed. As per the said decision of the Apex Court even though the situation is not covered by section 33 of the Evidence Act, still the party is entitled for admission of such evidence where the other side has made admissions. Further, it is also a fact that the evidence was recorded in the suit instituted between the same parties. Therefore, it is appropriate that the admissions made in an earlier suit should be received as evidence and the same should be marked as an exhibit on behalf of the present Plaintiff. The decisions of the Calcutta High Court relied upon by the learned counsel also support his contention. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the I. A. No. 243 of 2001 in O. S. No. 1095 of 1995 is allowed. ( 10 ) IN the result the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.