IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5638 OF 2010 Between : Neeruganti Kesava Reddy .... PETITIONER A N D Neeruganti Surya Prakash Reddy @ Suryanarayana Reddy and others. 4 … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5638 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.11.2010 in I.A.No.248 of 2010 in O.S.No.418 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 clause 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to receive the petition mentioned documents in O.S.No.418 of 2008, was dismissed. 2. O.S.No.418 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, was filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of 3/8th share in the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, I.A.No.248 of 2010 was filed to receive Relinquishment Deed, dated 16.09.1960, said to have been executed by one N.Hanumantha Reddy in favour of N.Subbarayudu and Original Family Agreement Deed executed by N.Suryanarayana Reddy and N.Kesava Reddy in favour of their mother (respondent No.6 herein). The said petition was dismissed vide impugned order, on the ground that sufficient reasons were not given for receipt of those documents. 3. Heard. 4. No doubt, the affidavit filed in support of the petition, does not contain any reasons for the receipt of documents. But, at the same time, those laches can be condoned for the simply reason that the factual foundation has been laid in the plaint by mentioning those documents. Therefore, those documents can be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. But, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the same on the ground that respondent No.1 herein was a minor at that time; that he has nothing to do with those documents; that he was not a party to the documents at that time. The relevancy and admissibility of those documents cannot be tested or decided at this stage. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of merit and untenable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 11.11.2010 in I.A.No.248 of 2010 in O.S.No.418 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The trial Court is directed to receive the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 29, 2011 YVL