THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4522 OF 2009 Dated:19.02.2010 Between: M.A.Aleem .. Petitioner And Shaik Sardar .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4522 OF 2009 ORDER: The order dated 26.06.2009 in I.A.No.598 of 2009 in O.S.No.419 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, allowing the petition partly, receiving the certified copy of the sale deed No.4824 of 1999 while dismissing the same in respect of the unregistered rectification deed, led the partly unsuccessful plaintiff to file the present revision. I.A.No.598 of 2009 was filed under Order VII Rule 14 read with Order XIII Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff to receive the documents filed by PW.2 in evidence and mark the same in ‘A’ series or ‘X’ series. In the suit for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and examined the General Power of Attorney holder of his vendor as PW.2 who filed the rectification deed dated 02.06.1994 during the course of his evidence in respect of the error in sale deed Nos.722 and 729 of 1994, dated 26.02.1994, respectively, corrected by the said rectification deed. Due to the objections raised by the defendant, the documents were not marked through PW.2 and therefore the plaintiff sought for the documents to be received and admitted into evidence. The defendant resisted the request contending that PW.2 filed the rectification deed dated 02.06.1994 when he was examined at his residence on commission, but the document was not admissible as it has to be compulsorily registered. The defendant contended the document to have been brought into existence for the purpose of the suit and hence, the defendant resisted the request for receiving the document. The trial Court rendered the impugned order noting that certain documents produced by PW.2 during his examination through an advocate-commissioner were not marked due to the objections raised by the defendant and that subsequent request by PW.2 through a memo to mark the documents was negatived. The trial Court also noted that the rectification deed was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.30/- and the suit was at the stage of further evidence of the plaintiff. The trial Court also noted that while the admissibility and proof of the documents need not be looked into at this stage, the Court only had to see as to why the plaintiff could not file the documents earlier. The trial Court felt that the unregistered rectification deed is neither filed by the plaintiff nor referred to in the plaint and if the document was real, it should have been in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeared to have no knowledge of the rectification deed. The trial Court followed a decision in Ravi Satish V. Etala Durga Prasad and others[1] and observed that the plaintiff did not state anywhere in his affidavit as to in whose possession the rectification deed was and why he did not amend the suit survey number if the unregistered rectification deed was executed on 02.06.1994. Opining that the plaintiff did not give any reason for not producing the unregistered rectification deed earlier, the trial Court felt that there was no justifiable cause for not producing the document and the document need not be received. The plaintiff challenges the said order in this revision contending that the trial Court failed to consider that the suit was for mere injunction and that the rectification deed could have been used for a collateral purpose to show the nature of possession of the plaintiff. He further contended that the trial Court also failed to note that the rectification deed was in the possession of the witness PW.2 and not the plaintiff and the trial Court ought not to have prevented the production of document by PW.2 during his evidence and therefore the revision petitioner desired the impugned order to be reversed. Though notice of the revision before admission was ordered to the respondent, he could not be personally served and he was ordered to be served such notice of the revision petition by substituted service by publication which was accordingly effected. The respondent did not enter appearance either in person or through any counsel. Heard Sri M.T.Ghori, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The point for consideration is whether the unregistered rectification deed produced by PW.2 ought not to have been refused to be received? POINT:- Order VII Rule 14 Sub Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates a plaintiff to enter the document on which he was suing or relying upon, in a list, when the document was in his possession and power. The plaintiff was also bound to deliver into Court such document or a copy thereof in support of his claim along with the plaint by virtue of the provision. Sub Rule (2) of the said Rule 14 itself gives liberty to the plaintiff to say wherever possible about any such document not in his possession or power stating in whose possession or power it is. The prohibition imposed by Sub Rule (3) against production of such documents later without the leave of the Court for being received in evidence is thus only in respect of documents in the possession or power or the plaintiff but not otherwise. Similarly, Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates the parties to produce all documentary evidence in original on or before settlement of issues, if copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or the written statement. It is obvious that the reference in Order XIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is also to such documents which were filed along with the pleadings or which ought to have been filed along with the pleadings being in the possession or power of the parties. Any prohibition against receiving any documents subsequent to the plaint and the written statement by virtue of the relevant provisions was thus only in respect of the documents in possession or the power of the parties, but not in the possession or power of a third party or a witness. The unregistered rectification deed, which is refused to be received by the trial Court, was produced by PW.2 during his examination as a witness through an advocate commissioner and the plaintiff and PW.2 obviously contend that the original document was in the possession and power of PW.2 and not the plaintiff. Therefore, any prohibition against receiving the same due to delay in production of document would not have operated. The trial Court itself felt that it was not the stage to look into the admissibility or proof of the document and therefore the question whether the unregistered rectification deed can be looked into for any collateral purpose in the suit for permanent injunction need not be answered at this stage. The principle laid down i n Ravi Satish’s case (stated supra) followed by the trial Court is applicable only in respect of documents which ought to have been filed along with the plaint or the written statement and the failure to file such documents was not explained later with adequate reasons by the parties while requesting orally to receive such documents. The principle obviously can have no application in respect of a document over which the plaintiff had no possession or power. The other circumstances referred to by the trial Court about the absence of any justifiable cause or reason for the plaintiff in not referring to the document earlier in his pleadings etc., are circumstances which are not quite relevant for considering the request for receiving the documents and in the words of the trial Court itself the admissibility and proof of the documents should not be looked into for this purpose. Therefore, the unregistered rectification deed also should be ordered to be received subject to admissibility and proof like the registered sale deed ordered to be received by the trial Court and the impugned order has to be reversed to that extent allowing the petition in whole. Accordingly, the order dated 26.06.2009 in I.A.No.598 of 2009 in O.S.No.419 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, is modified allowing the petition in respect of not only the certified copy of the sale deed in Document No.4824 of 1999 but also in respect of the unregistered rectification deed, dated 02.06.1994 and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 19th February 2010 KH [1] 2009 (3) A.L.T. 326