IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5379 of 2010 BETWEEN Ch. Sugunamma. ... PETITIONER AND Ch. Raja Narender Reddy and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the first claimant in O.P.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District, aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2010 dismissing in I.A.No.281 of 2010 in O.P.No.49 of 2008. 2. In view of the rival claims for award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, the matter was referred to civil Court and the same was numbered as O.P.No.49 of 2008. Petitioner herein filed an application being I.A.No.281 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 14(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to receive the original agreement between the first claimant and one Ch. Yadava Reddy dated 11.09.2007 and another original document dated 19.05.1971 by condoning the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it is stated that though the said documents were handed over to the advocate on record, the said documents were misplaced in the office of the counsel, as such they could not be filed earlier. With the aforesaid pleas, the application was filed to receive the documents. 3. The trial Court after considering the submissions on either side dismissed I.A.No.281 of 2010 mainly on the ground that the unregistered and unstamped documents in question must be compulsorily registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, as such, they are not admissible in evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the documents are sought to be filed into the Court by explaining the delay the trial Court ought not to have refused the application filed by the petitioner to receive the documents. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court in ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANIZATION, HYDERABAD v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO, LTD., ANANTAPUR[1]. 5. In the aforesaid judgment, the learned single Judge of this Court held that a document is admissible or not is to be decided only when it is sought to be introduced in evidence but not at the time when it was filed into the Court. It is further held that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC the only aspect which is required to be considered is the delay in not filing the document is properly explained or not. In the present case, it is to be noticed that the documents were filed by explaining the delay caused on the ground that though the documents were handed over to the advocate on record, the same were misplaced in the office of the advocate, as such they were not filed earlier. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports his case. 6. In spite of service of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner’s counsel served notice on the first respondent, which returned unserved and he also filed a memo along with an endorsement on the notice returned unserved as not claimed. It is to be noted that when the party has not claimed it is deemed as service of notice on the party. 7. As much as I.A.No.281 of 2010 is dismissed only on the ground that the documents are unstamped and unregistered and in view of the judgment of this Court ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANIZATION’s case (1 supra), the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and consequently, I.A.No.281 of 2010 stands allowed. However, it is made clear that if the documents in question are not admissible in evidence it is open for the respondents to object the admissibility of the documents when such documents are sought to be marked in evidence. It is also made clear that when such objections are raised it is open to the Court below to adjudicate on such objections independently. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J July 12, 2011 DSK [1] 2007 (3) ALD 496