IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.634 OF 2010 Between: Shaik Ahmed …Petitioner A n d Smt.Ameena Bee and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.634 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-11-2009 in I.A.No.598 of 2009 in O.S.No.480 of 2006, on the file of the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein, the defendants, for receiving certain documents in evidence, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 11/12th share in the plaint schedule house property. The respondents filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues have been settled and the trial of the suit commenced. The plaintiff’s side evidence was closed after examining three witnesses and the first respondent-defendant was examined as D.W.1. During the evidence of the second defendant, certain documents were sought to be produced before the Court by filing I.A.No.598 of 2009 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC. The same was opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground of delay. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the documents sought to be filed by the defendants are sale deeds, property tax demand notices, receipts, water charge receipts and electricity receipts pertaining to the suit schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the delay was sought to be explained by stating that they are old documents and they have to be searched and translated from Urdu and, therefore, they could not be filed earlier. 5. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the suit is one for partition, it is just and proper that an opportunity is given to both sides to place the entire evidence on record so that the trial Court would be able to adjudicate upon the dispute in a comprehensive and effective manner. 6. In that view of the matter, it is considered that the defendants can be permitted to produce the documents before the Court, subject to proof and relevancy. It is needless to state that the petitioner-plaintiff shall have every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pertaining to the said documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff is a senior citizen, aged about 70 years and the suit was filed in 2006 and the present application is filed by the defendants only to protract the matter. 7. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is a senior citizen and the suit is of the year 2006 and is also part-heard, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th March, 2011 Note:: CC in one week ( B/o) Lrkm.