THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3160 of 2009 30.10.2009 Between: Patti Nageswara Rao, S/o.Mariyya … Petitioner AND Kapakayala Surya Kumari, W/o.Pothuraju … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3160 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent (hereafter, plaintiff) is none other than sister of the petitioner (hereafter, defendant). She instituted suit being O.S.No.550 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, for partition of suit schedule properties. The defendant filed written statement opposing partition, inter alia, on the ground that their mother, Late Sattemma, during her lifetime executed a Will bequeathing plaint schedule property in favour of defendant and that after death of the mother, the property devolved on him. The suit went on trial. When the matter came up for defendant’s evidence, he filed affidavit of R.W.1 in lieu of chief examination enclosing the Will and a registered partition deed dated 12.1.1994 between the parties and their mother to be taken on record and to mark them as exhibits. Plaintiff raised objection. Considering the objection, learned trial Judge dismissed I.A.No.133 of 2009 for receiving the two documents referred to herein above observing as under. Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit of the petitioner and the counter. There are two documents namely, Will dated 15.7.1997 and partition deed dated 12.1.1994, which are sought to be received. There is no reference with regard to the partition deed either in the affidavit of the petitioner or in the petition. The petitioner/defendant has to produce the documents before the Court along with the written statement. This suit is of the year 2002 and the petitioner/ defendant filed his written statement in the year 2003 itself. The petitioner/defendant has not filed the documents along with the written statement. Even the petitioner has not explained in his affidavit about non-filing of the documents along with the written statement. The petitioner has not given any reason in the affidavit for allowing this petition. Hence, the petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, petition is dismissed. Present civil revision petition is filed assailing the order of trial Court in I.A.No.133 of 2009. This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent. The trial Court rejected the prayer of petitioner to receive the documents only on the ground that they are filed with lot of delay and that they are not enclosed with written statement. To think that the parties should file all the documents they rely on plaint and/or written statement as the case may be, is certainly an error. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) enables the plaintiff to file documents at the stage of presentation of plaint and enables the defendant to file documents at the stage of written statement. In addition to this, CPC also enables the parties to file and produce documentary evidence at the stage of framing of the issues, at the stage of fixing the dates for trial under Order XVI of CPC and even during the trial by confronting the witnesses in the cross- examination. However, to ensure expeditious, prompt and fair trial, the law contemplates that the parties should produce documents at the earliest point of time, so that other party may not be caught by surprise. This however does not mean that the parties precluded from producing document, which was not in his/her custody earlier. In this case, though defendant referred to the Will in his written statement, it appears that it was not filed by the lawyer. Therefore, it is a fit case where the defendant should be allowed to produce the documents, which shall be subjected to proof in the trial. The suit is pending from 2001. Therefore 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. Learned Counsel for the parties may cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. The civil revision petition, with the above observations, is accordingly allowed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October 30, 2009 YS