IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6001 OF 2008 Between: Atthipati Seenaiah …Petitioner A n d Somu Krishnareddy ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6001 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-09-2008 in I.A.No.633 of 2008 in O.S.No.177 of 2007, on the file the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for receiving certain documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and is also in possession and enjoyment of the same. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.654 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. An ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. During enquiry of the said I.A.No.654 of 2007, the petitioner filed the present application I.A.No.633 of 2008 seeking permission to receive certain documents, the particulars of which are disclosed in the list attached to the petition. The petitioner seeks to file registered sale deed dated 27-05-63 under which the petitioner’s grandfather is said to have purchased, a registered settlement deed dated 20-04-1989 under which the petitioner/plaintiff is said to have acquired title to the property from his grandfather, revenue passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangam and revenue title deed book issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali in respect of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the said documents to prove his claim and title in respect of the said lands. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the application does not disclose the particulars of the documents nor their relevance to the suit dispute. Though the affidavit is no doubt vague in the sense that it does not disclose the relevance of the documents and the reasons for the failure of the petitioner to file them along with the plaint at the first instance, the particulars of the documents sought to be filed are, however, disclosed in the list of documents attached to the petition. The trial Court observed that receiving of the documents would cause hardship to the respondent and also would change the nature of the suit. It is not stated in the impugned order as to what type of hardship would be caused to the respondent and how the respondent would be put to prejudice if the documents filed by the petitioner are received. Inasmuch as the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner are title deeds and also documents evidencing the alleged possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, they are certainly relevant and they do have a bearing over the decision in the matter. 4. It is well settled that the procedure is only intended to serve as a means for securing the ultimate goal of arriving at a just decision in the matter. Simply because the affidavit filed in support of the application is not drafted properly, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the opportunity of placing necessary documentary evidence before the Court to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision in the matter. Barring a party from filing the documents on which he seeks to rely upon to establish his claim for getting the relief prayed for, especially at the threshold stage would certainly cause serious hardship and prejudice. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order refusing permission to the petitioner to file the documents as per the list appended to the petition is held unsustainable and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.633 of 2008 stands allowed and the petitioner is permitted to file the said documents. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th March, 2011 Lrkm.