HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.248 OF 2010 DATE:05-02-2010 BETWEEN Betha Venkata Krishna Rao & Another. …Petitioners AND Madem Vinay Kumar. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.248 OF 2010 ORDER: Defendants are in revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dated 27.8.2009 in allowing I.A.No.849 of 2009 in O.S.No.121 of 2009 filed by the respondent- plaintiff for reception of certain documents. The respondent herein instituted the above suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and recovery of possession from the custody of the defendants- petitioners herein by evicting them therefrom. The defendants filed their written statement contending that the suit schedule property was the ancestral property of maternal grandfather of the respondent-plaintiff and as such the gift deed executed by him are not valid. Now, the respondent-plaintiff filed the impugned I.A. alleging that the suit schedule property was acquired by his maternal grandfather late Betha Venkata Rao under registered will and registered sale deed and therefore, to substantiate the same and to disprove the contention of the defendants, the documents listed in the petition have to he received being the link documents for Exs.A.1 and A.2. The lower Court in exercise of the discretion, by the impugned order allowed the I.A. for reception of the documents sought to be marked subject to proof and relevancy, on payment of costs. The impugned order if allowed to stand, will not attain finality and further, as the documents were received subject to proof and relevancy, the defendants-petitioners will have every opportunity to lead evidence on that aspect and disprove the admissibility of those documents in evidence. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2009 Tsr.