IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5739 of 2010 Between: Thota Gurumurthy & another, ..... Petitioners AND Karri Chandramma .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Manik Prabhu Counsel for the respondent: Sri N.G.K. Nair for Sri A. Ravi Shankar The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5739 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 28.10.2010 in I.A.No. 193 of 2010 in O.S.No.54 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent filed the suit initially for perpetual injunction and sought for declaration of title and injunction by way of an amendment. The petitioners filed written statement resisting the prayer in the suit. They have, however, fled I.A.No.193 of 2010 in the said suit for receiving the two documents, namely; registered settlement deed dated 12.12.1998 and registered sale deed dated 29.10.2002 in order to substantiate their plea taken in the written statement that under the registered settlement deed dated 12.12.1998, the respondent plaintiff has acquired right over the property and that the same was disposed of in favour of the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 29.10.2002. This application was dismissed by the Court below on the reasoning that the petitioners failed to mention in their written statement that these documents were misplaced. In my opinion, the approach of the Court below is highly technical. The fact that the petitioners referred to the documents in the written statement is not in dispute. However, as the said documents were stated to be misplaced, obviously they could not be filed along with the written statement. By allowing the petitioners to produce these documents in evidence, no injustice will be caused to the respondent, as the burden lies on the petitioners to prove their plea with reference to the documents that are sought to be filed by them to substantiate their plea. However, as the petitioners failed to file these documents along with the written statement, I deem it appropriate to saddle them with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the respondent. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to the above condition of payment of costs. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the manner indicated above, CRPMP No.7644 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.01.2011 ES