IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1740, 1741 & 1739 OF 2012 Between:- Sarasammad Mohammad Arashad Pasha and others …Petitioners A n d Sarasammad Mohammad Asif Ali and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1740, 1741 & 1739 OF 2012 COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions are directed against the order dated 19.01.2012 in I.A.Nos.701, 702 and 703 of 2011 respectively in O.S.No.115 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, for reopening the evidence, recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents and for according leave to mark the documents as exhibits on behalf of plaintiffs, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. The respondents filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit has commenced. It is stated that at the stage of arguments, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.703 of 2011 under order VII Rule 14(3) CPC seeking leave of the Court to file certain documents. The plaintiffs also filed the other two applications viz., I.A.No.701 and 702 of 2011 for reopening of evidence and recall of the witnesses to mark the documents. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the said documents comprised certified copies of partition deed, sale deeds and adangals, true copies of town survey map and town revenue map. The trial Court dismissed the said applications on the ground that no reasons have been furnished for the delay in filing the documents and also that no foundation has been laid in the plaint regarding the said documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that in the plaint specific averments have been made regarding mode of acquisition viz., the partition and purchase and also about the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs and the documents proposed to be filed are to establish the said claim of ownership and enjoyment. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the documents ought to have been filed earlier, they could not be filed as they were misplaced and were traced recently. The said reason did not find favour with the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings. 5. As the proposed documents are in the nature of title deeds and also documents to show the alleged possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs, with a view to giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to place best evidence available on record so that the Court can have the benefit of appreciating the said evidence so as to arrive at a just decision in the matter, it is considered that the Court can permit the petitioners to file the documents as proposed. Needless to state that the respondents/defendants are at liberty to raise all objections permissible under law regarding the proof, relevancy and admissibility of the said documents at the appropriate stage. It is also open to the respondents to adduce such further evidence that they may choose to lead, in rebuttal. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and consequently I.A.Nos.701, 702 and 703 of 2011 in O.S.No.115 of 2006 stands allowed. 6. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2006 and in order to allay the apprehensions of respondents/defendants that the plaintiff is trying to protract the proceedings and also the fact that the present applications are filed at the stage of arguments, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th July, 2012 Lrkm