IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4032 & 4034 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4032 OF 2009: Between: Yadala Eswaramma, W/o. Malakondaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Yadala Malakondayya, S/o. Nagaiah ....RESPONDENT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2009: Between: Yadala Eswaramma, W/o. Malakondaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Yadala Malakondayya, S/o. Nagaiah ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4032 & 4034 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4032 OF 2009: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.06.2009, in I.A.No.476 of 2009 in O.P.No.126 of 2006, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukuru, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed to receive the copy of the voters’ list of Pamur Village for the year 2009, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/respondent did not file the said document during the course of her evidence and that the cause for delay in filing the said document has not been explained. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 3. The only ground on which the trial Court dismissed the petition is that no explanation was given for not filing the same at the time of giving evidence. Petitioner recently came to know about voters’ list now sought to be marked. At the time of giving evidence, petitioner was not having knowledge about the voters’ list. 4. In view of the fact that the voters’ list itself is published in the year 2009, the trial Court ought to have received the document filed by the petitioner. The legality, admissibility or genuineness of the document can be decided at the time of marking of the documents. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.4032 of 209 is allowed, setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2009: 6. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.06.1009, in I.A.No.478 of 2009 in O.P.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukuru, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed to re-open the evidence of the petitioner/respondent in O.P.No.126 of 2006, was dismissed. 7. In view of the fact that C.R.P.No.4032 of 2009 is allowed, the document – voters’ list of Pamur Village for the year 2009 has to be received and marked through the witness. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, the petition filed to re-open the evidence of petitioner/respondent side in O.P.No.126 of 2006 is allowed. 8. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.4034 of 2009 is also allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 25, 2010 MD/YVL